Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Khat

Paul Flynn: What estimate he has made of the number of people who would be (a) arrested, (b) brought to court and (c) imprisoned if khat was classified as an illegal drug.

Paul Goggins: No such estimates have been made. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has carried out a comprehensive study into the harms associated with the plant khat. The Council's report is currently with the Home Secretary and will be published in due course.

Paul Flynn: Is not the call for a ban on khat based on the naive, mistaken belief that banning drugs eliminates their use, while in fact the reverse is true? Millions of people in Britain use illegal drugs every day. Would not a ban on khat drive a wedge between the police forces and the Somali and Yemeni communities, encourage khat users to use far more addictive and dangerous drugs such as alcohol and tobacco and change legal businesses into criminal ones overnight, and also place a burden—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too long.

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend and the Government have a rather different view of the control of drugs. It was due to concern about the health and other impacts of khat use in the communities that he mentioned that the issue was referred to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The council has made its assessment and its report and the Home Secretary is considering it. He will make his decision and an announcement in due course.

Humfrey Malins: In the courts where I sit, there is no link at all between the consumption of khat and crime. The danger of banning such a substance is that the price will shoot up, supplies will drop and more people will turn to crime to fund their habit, so may I urge the Minister to focus more on crack cocaine and heroin and to take no steps, for obvious reasons, on that particular substance?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that the Government's priority is class A drugs—heroin and crack cocaine—which do the most harm, but the Home Secretary is considering the report from the advisory council. He will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments and will make his decision in due course.

Brian Iddon: The noble lord, Lord Adebowale, the chief executive of Turning Point, said of khat:
	"It is a social care issue and it requires a social care response. We need to be looking at the whole range of people's needs from physical and mental health right through to employment and family support services."
	Will my hon. Friend take Lord Adebowale's opinion into account before he makes his decision?

Paul Goggins: Not only that, but Lord Adebowale and Turning Point, the organisation that he heads, have done important work in that area. Indeed, Turning Point submitted a report to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which is among the range of evidence being actively considered by the Home Secretary.

Edward Garnier: As the Minister will know, the use and trade of drugs are behind the majority of criminal activity and social problems in this country. Sixty per cent. of those arrested, convicted and imprisoned reoffend, so what are the Government actually doing to deal with the underlying problems that drug use reveals?

Paul Goggins: A great deal. The drug interventions programme, which is at the heart of what we are doing in relation to drug-misusing offenders, is the key. More than 2,000 drug-misusing offenders a month are going into treatment through the programme. At the same time, crime levels are falling. That has to be a good message, which I hope will be welcomed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. With the intervention and the investments we are making drug-related crime is falling while the numbers coming into treatment are increasing.

Kerry McCarthy: I want to reiterate what the Minister said about the demand for the criminalisation of khat coming from the Somali community, as that is certainly the case in my constituency. I also support calls for more emphasis on serious drugs such as crack cocaine, so are there are any plans to repeat Operation Crackdown this year, which was a great success last year?

Paul Goggins: It will be very much for police forces to decide on how to take forward their new powers in relation to Operation Crackdown, which closed down crack houses and not only took out those who supplied drugs in our communities, but did so most effectively with the active co-operation of local communities. My hon. Friend's comments on khat are noted, and the considerations continue.

Police Force Amalgamation

David Gauke: What plans he has to ensure local accountability of policing if forces amalgamate.

David Evennett: What assessment he has made of proposed arrangements for local accountability of policing following amalgamations of forces; and if he will make a statement.

Charles Clarke: The Government have already set out our plans for accountability in our 2004 White Paper, and they are being actively developed with the   Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. Those plans for direct accountability include appointment throughout the country of local neighbourhood police teams whose names, phone numbers and e-mail addresses will be available to every citizen, which will be completed by the end of 2008; publication of local crime data, for which local police will be held publicly accountable; and regular partnership meetings at basic command unit level, where police will discuss local questions with elected councillors and others, combined with question and answer sessions open to the public, media and community groups.

David Gauke: Does the Home Secretary accept that under the current arrangements we already lack adequate directly elected, local accountability and that the move towards larger forces will merely make this matter worse? For example, in Hertfordshire we currently have a police authority of 16 members, none of whom is directly elected, but nine of whom are at least county councillors. If we move towards an eastern region force, which is one of the options that the Government are considering, we will have a police authority of up to 23 members, of which at most two will be Hertfordshire county councillors. Is the Home Secretary merely making a bad position worse?

Charles Clarke: I am afraid that I cannot accept that the current situation is satisfactory. There is not sufficient accountability at the moment between local police officers and their immediate local community at beat level; there is not sufficient accountability between basic command unit commanders and local elected councillors and local people; and there is not sufficient publication of data locally.
	A lot of good things are happening and moving forward, but the White Paper in 2004 set out a stream of ways in which accountability has to be increased. That is the most important thing for us to fix upon.

David Evennett: Does the Home Secretary appreciate the real concerns and disquiet across the country about police force amalgamations and accountability to local communities? Surely, the issues involved are complex, so why are the Government rushing the changes through? What is the hurry? Why cannot more discussion take place and more time be taken before decisions are made?

Charles Clarke: There is not the slightest rush in this regard. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We set out our proposals clearly in the White Paper and I set out, in a public speech last July to all police authorities and all chief constables, how we intended to go. We refined those proposals in September last year. Police authorities and police forces were then asked to discuss this matter fully and come up with proposals, and I am glad to say by the 23 December almost all of them did so, despite some of the misleading publicity at that time.
	Where there is a voluntary agreement—I emphasise the word "voluntary"—between police authorities and forces, we will proceed immediately. Where there is not such an agreement, a statutory four-month period for full discussion is required. I am sure that the kind of debate that the hon. Gentleman wants will take place in areas where there is such disagreement.

Rob Marris: Part of local accountability is to do with local funding. Will my right hon. Friend say what would happen, for example, in the greater west midlands if there is amalgamation, where the precept levels between the different police authorities are markedly different?

Charles Clarke: As my hon. Friend knows, three of the four forces in the west midlands region favour this amalgamation. There are issues, as he rightly says, about the precept and how it can be brought together effectively. That is precisely one of the issues on which the forces have made proposals and which   we will discuss with them. I can assure him that we will come to a sensible conclusion in that regard, but we will not allow that to present a blockage to the sensible proposals supported by three out of four forces in the west midlands.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend is correct to emphasise the basic command unit, which meets the population face to face in its daily working arrangements. However, when he talks about consultation, does he realise that many people, particularly in the shire counties, would want a guarantee that in any amalgamated force the police officers from our shire counties are not sucked into the west midlands? How can we have real accountability, rather than consultation, under his arrangements?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entitled to ask for that guarantee. It is a fair question and my answer to it is the   commitment that I gave in my initial answer: the absolute commitment to neighbourhood policing with a   local policing team—with named officers and named community support officers working with that neighbourhood—the point being to ensure that they are not obstructed from their day-to-day policing of a particular locality because the force is not large enough to deal with the crises that emerge from time to time.
	My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter and I can give him the pure, solid assurance that it will be respected in every approach. I think that every community in the country will want to see us fulfilling our manifesto pledge to neighbourhood community policing across the whole country—in every community, whether shire or not—by 2008.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Home Secretary will undoubtedly appreciate that policing is always by consent, and that the quid pro quo for that is good local accountability. Will he explain how the awful vista of one force for the whole of Wales will increase local accountability in the north of the country, when it takes five to six hours to drive from Cardiff to north Wales?

Charles Clarke: Precisely by the means I described a moment ago in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins). Of course it is important that there is proper accountability in the local village, the local ward and the very local area. In the Government's opinion, that requires police who are dedicated to working in that local area with community support officers. That will apply in north Wales, south Wales, east Wales and west Wales. It also requires that, at the level of the district council and the basic command unit, there is proper dialogue between the police and the other agencies, including elected councillors, about how we ensure that policing—at the end of the day, it is an all-community responsibility and not simply a responsibility for the police—is done in the most effective way. That will happen in north Wales and south Wales, and that is the right way to go.

Ian Lucas: In my right hon. Friend's proposals for an all-Wales force is it his intention to have on the police authority a representative of each of the 22 local authorities in Wales?

Charles Clarke: That is one of the issues that has been raised in the responses from the Welsh forces. It is a very reasonable response, and my hon. Friend's point is also very reasonable. We are looking at the exact detail of how to bring that about, but I can certainly say that we are looking at it with a very positive approach.

William Cash: The Home Secretary may know that there is significant opposition in Staffordshire and my constituency of Stone to the proposals that the police forces in the west midlands be amalgamated. To what extent does he really believe that when we are dealing with regional systems such as would be set up in the west midlands, the philosophy and the attitude that is relevant to dealing with very large urban areas such as the west midlands would be applicable to rural constituencies such as Stone and others in Staffordshire?

Charles Clarke: I have been very encouraged—it is an important point to emphasise—by the extent to which chief constables, chief officers and police authorities of all types from all parts of the country are utterly committed to the neighbourhood policing idea. Why? Because they know that crime will be best prevented by having police on the beat in the local community working with the local community. Whatever type of force we talk about—whether it is in Stone in Staffordshire or in the centre of Birmingham—that ideology is there and established, and it is a core part of our proposals.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Excellent though the Home Secretary's ideas undoubtedly are, I hope that he will understand that, much as we in Crewe admire the cities of Liverpool and Manchester, there are reservations in our minds as to how much accountability there would be for those of us at the bottom of a very large regional area if decisions were taken elsewhere and in an urban setting. Will he give us a very clear idea of how that point will be dealt with?

Charles Clarke: Well, Madam Speaker—I do apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was slightly distracted for a second.
	I certainly know that my hon. Friend can punch her weight in these arguments, and her key point about reservations is a fair one. It is a fair one to put to me as Home Secretary and to my colleagues to ensure that we provide the assurance that she is looking for. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I am indeed answering the question, and I will continue to do so. The answer is that I can give her the absolute assurance that the responsibility for policing will lie in local communities in the way that I have described and that accountability will not be diluted by larger forces at the strategic level. That is the absolute assurance that I give her and the House.

Mark Oaten: If the Home Secretary really wants accountability, will he make two commitments today? The first commitment is that no merger can take place unless local elected police authority members have actually voted for it. The second commitment is that every council tax payer will be told exactly how much the mergers will cost and will see what the cost is when they get their bills in April. Unless he makes these two commitments, we will end up with a situation in which local people will have even less of a say but will have to pay even more.

Charles Clarke: I am familiar with the hon. Gentleman's leadership bids in relation to these matters. I can give him a commitment on the second of his points, but not on the first. The commitment that I can give him is that the full financial facts in relation to any particular proposal will be in front of everybody including council tax payers in any locality. I cannot give him the commitment that police authorities around the country would have a veto on change. That would be utterly ridiculous in circumstances in which the police say that we have to ensure that our policing meets modern 21st century needs. That is what I am determined to deliver.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of local accountability is related to the neighbourhood policing model? Will he thus commend the work of South Wales police, especially the Bridgend division, which is not in a pilot area, but is bringing forward many elements of community policing well in advance of the pilot areas? Will he consider joining me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) when we spend a night with South Wales police a week next Friday?

Charles Clarke: I have had many offers this year and all I can say to my hon. Friend, whom I respect greatly, is that I cannot guarantee to accept every single one.

John Bercow: Irresistible.

Charles Clarke: It is irresistible to some, certainly.
	The commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) to neighbourhood policing is absolutely central. In commending Bridgend police and the approach that they have taken, may I add that it is important to publish figures on local crime? I   cite the example of my own constabulary, the Norfolk constabulary. Every week, the Evening News Norwich publishes a detailed account of crimes committed—such as burglaries and car thefts, and information about the streets on which they have occurred—precisely so that local people have information about the crime that has been going on in their patch. That provides accountability in a direct way and it should proceed.

David Davis: Of the dozen or so police regions that we are about to have under the Government's proposals, how many have the unanimous support of their constituent police authorities?

Charles Clarke: Of the regions, I think that none has the unanimous support that the right hon. Gentleman talks about. However, I can say that there is a clear majority of police authority support in several regions, and that is the way that this is being taken forward. I was amazed to see the proposals that were brought together today to bring politics into policing by making elected politicians directly responsible for operational policing. If the right hon. Gentleman had been elected Leader of the Opposition, I know that he would not be putting forward anything so foolish.

David Davis: I will bring the Home Secretary back to Government policy for the moment, shall I? The reason why there is no unanimous support for the regions is pretty clear from what has been said already. The proposal will cost hundreds of millions of pounds. It will dilute accountability throughout the country and disrupt police operations. It is based on an analysis with logic that has been described as flawed by one of Britain's leading professors of statistics, and it is opposed by the Association of Police Authorities. It is opposed because there is a better alternative: the proposal described as federal, which means that there is co-operation between abutting police authorities on matters on which they have a strategic or common interest. Why has the Home Secretary ruled out that very sensible proposal out of hand?

Charles Clarke: Of course co-operation is a good thing. It happens in policing every day of the week in every part of the country and we want to encourage it—it is the right way to go. However, the fact is that when trying to deal with strategic police priorities, serious and organised crime and counter-terrorism, there must be operation at a strategic level. It is not me who is saying that, but the police themselves through Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and senior police officers. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there is controversy about the proposal, but the fact is that in region after region, the senior police believe that it is the way forward to meet the needs of the 21st century. It would be better for the official Opposition to get involved in the debate instead of trying to make elected politicians directly responsible for operational police decisions.

Police Force Reorganisation

Kelvin Hopkins: Whether the full costs of the planned police force reorganisations will be borne by central Government; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: I am aware that a variety of estimates of the costs of change are being floated. I do not believe that all of those are well-founded. The independent Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountability will be working with forces and authorities over the next few weeks to establish the real costs of change and future benefits. We will then consider the position further.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend, but she did not really answer my question, which was where the costs are going to be borne. There might be an argument about how big they are, but they should be borne by central Government, rather than local government. Will she give us assurances on that count?

Hazel Blears: I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that before the Government make any commitments, it is absolutely imperative to have the full, accurate and rigorous financial examination that we will go through here. We have discussed with the Association of Police Authorities how we can fund the up-front costs—there will be some. We have decided to set aside £50 million of capital expenditure this year and £75 million next year so that we can bridge some of the costs that might well fall on us. There are other options, such as reprioritising already planned investment decisions for several forces. There might well be a question of some prudential borrowing. Among those three areas, I am sure that we can meet the costs and reap the advantages.

Douglas Hogg: The Minister will know that the Lincolnshire police authority and the Lincolnshire constabulary believe that the one-off and recurring costs of amalgamation have been grossly underestimated by the Government. That being so, will she give an undertaking to the House that before amalgamation proceeds, we can have an independent audit of the likely costs, both recurring and one-off?

Hazel Blears: I am absolutely determined to get accurate and proper financial information. It is not in the interests of the Government, the country or the forces to make decisions without that firm evidence base. That is why we have taken the step of commissioning external assistance through CIPFA—a well recognised, independent and authoritative organisation—to work with the forces and authorities, to go through the books, to examine the businesses cases and to make sure that the decisions that we make are in the interests of long-term effective policing in this country and provide a firm foundation for the years to come.

Chris McCafferty: Bearing in mind the fact that under the reorganisation plans the West Yorkshire police force meets all the criteria to remain a strategic authority, and the fact that the West Yorkshire police authority would take a huge burden upon itself if the proposed amalgamation took place, will my right hon. Friend give careful consideration to three financial measures that would aid the authority in the event of amalgamation? The first would be to fund a counter-terrorism unit. The second would be as a matter of urgency to repay to the West Yorkshire police force the outstanding claim in respect of the work that was done on the 7 July London bombings. The third and final—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hazel Blears: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for making an extremely powerful bid on behalf of her local police force. Those issues are under consideration and I   shall endeavour to expedite that consideration. I pay tribute to the West Yorkshire force and the police authority for their constructive approach to the proposals to bring forces together. There are serious issues to address and local communities have concerns, but her local authority has entered into the spirit of the negotiations in an extremely constructive way.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Minister tells us that she is making sense of what the costs will be, but we all know that in every Government change, reshuffle or reorganisation, regardless of who is in power, costs have always been underestimated—for example, the costs of changing letterheads, signposts and badges and respraying cars. She knows very well that that will happen, so if she will not have an independent inquiry will she at least give an undertaking that the Home Office will cover all the non-operational costs—the costs of those extra changes—that will be incurred as a direct result of these ludicrous proposals?

Hazel Blears: What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am absolutely determined to ensure that we get value for money for the investment that we make as the process goes ahead. This morning, the Conservative leader said that
	"there's little evidence that the performance of the police has improved in line with this increase in resources."
	I reject that entirely. I think that the police have performed extremely well in recent years and we have seen massive reductions in crime. Bringing forces together into bigger, strategic forces to protect neighbourhood policing will be an extremely important next step in ensuring that we continue to get value for money from our investment.

David Taylor: May I point out to the Minister that the name of the accountancy body in question is the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy? I declare an interest as a member of it. Does she accept that, according to estimates made in the east midlands, the set-up cost, the cost of disruption and the associated costs of the proposals will swamp the tiny savings on which the Government hang their hat? Ministers have talked about having 43 IT systems, 43 human resources systems and so on, but the revenue savings associated with having a single system in each region will probably be in the order of 2 per cent. The increase in costs associated with the disruption of major regionalisation will not be met in the foreseeable future.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend may well be a member of CIPFA, and I am sure that he is extremely well qualified in these matters. However, I reject entirely the proposition that he puts forward that there will never be any savings as a result of bringing these forces together. Do we need 43 different human resources departments? Do we need 43 different press offices? Similarly, do we need 43 different payroll organisations? There are considerable economies of scale to be gained from bringing together back-office services, procurement, call centres and the organisation of our police forces. We will be rigorous in making that financial examination. I do not accept that there will not, in the long term, be economies of scale that we can then reinvest in ensuring that our protective services are more effectively provided and that we protect this country against serious and organised crime.

Nick Herbert: The Association of Police Authorities has estimated the costs of the amalgamations at between £500 million and £600 million. By contrast, the Minister has said that only £125 million will be available, belatedly, to meet those costs. Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether that is new money or whether it is coming from existing police capital budgets? Will she explain how the gap, to coin a phrase, will be closed? Is it not the case that inevitably the cost and the difference will be met by local tax payers?

Hazel Blears: I think that I have already made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that, with the assistance of CIPFA, we shall be carrying out a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. I do not necessarily accept some of the figures that have been put forward. I do not think that they are an accurate reflection of the costs that will be involved. It is extremely important that we have a rigorous analysis of what the true costs are. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think clearly. One of the costs of doing nothing and one of the costs of being so conservative is that we do not make the necessary changes that Denis O'Connor, Her Majesty's inspector, has recommended. If we do not take these steps, we leave the United Kingdom vulnerable to serious and organised crime and without the ability to deal with that or to provide counter-terrorism measures. I say to the hon. Gentleman that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I need some co-operation from Ministers. We will move on to Question 4. I hope that we will be able to move beyond that question.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Keith Vaz: What investigations he has initiated into the granting of indefinite leave to remain by officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

Tony McNulty: Investigations regarding the conduct of officials responsible for indefinite leave to remain applications are carried out as and when necessary. There are clearly established procedures for initiating such investigations and for staff to raise any concerns that they may have. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the Home Office takes all allegations of misconduct extremely seriously.

Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the allegations made by Anthony Pamnani of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, who has said that applications for extensions of leave are routinely granted? In his words, they are based on whether the applicant is good looking or ugly. Assuming that that does not represent a change in Government policy and that he condemns such practices, and bearing in mind his commitment to increase the service given by IND, what steps will he take to ensure that there are sufficient staffing levels to make sure that IND is the truly efficient and effective organisation that we would all like it to be?

Tony McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I can tell him without reservation that there is no indication of a change in Government policy. I take the complaints of misconduct made by this individual, who used to work for IND, extremely seriously. To that end, on the day that the article appeared in a daily newspaper I instructed the director general of IND to present to me how the matter would be investigated. That investigation is now under way. It is headed by the non-executive director of IND, with support from within. I have undertaken also to publish as fully as I can the results of such an inquiry. We take these matters very seriously. If part of the equation, to which my hon. Friend alludes, is that more resources need at least to be considered in terms of the public inquiry office at Lunar house, I shall look at that.

Damian Green: Now that the Minister has, as he has just said, insisted on an internal inquiry, he will accept that a great deal of transparency is required to restore public confidence in the system. In that context, was the Home Office given any evidence of similar abuses by immigration officers before the allegations in The Sun on 3 January?

Tony McNulty: In response to the hon. Gentleman's second point, not to my knowledge. Certainly, nothing has been put before me in any regard. Of course, it is an internal inquiry. At this stage, that is right and proper. I said that I will publish details as fully as I can. If any of the investigations reveal irregularities and misconduct that may well lead to disciplinary and/or criminal procedures being invoked, depending on the seriousness of the charges. I shall neither pre-empt the report nor bind the hands of the individual who is preparing it by saying that I will publish the entire thing. It may well be for reasons relating to disciplinary and criminal matters that that is not possible. However, I shall publish it as fully as possible given that caveat.

Community Support Officers

Barbara Follett: What assessment he has made of whether there is a need to increase the numbers of police community support officers in rural areas.

Andy Burnham: The Government have made a commitment that by 2008 every area in England and Wales will benefit from dedicated and visible neighbourhood policing teams. To support this commitment, we will increase the number of community support officers to 24,000 by 2008, and we are making significant additional resources available through the neighbourhood policing fund. All 43 forces will benefit from this expansion.

Barbara Follett: I welcome the extra funding that has been made available, and urge my hon. Friend to try to ensure that large villages situated several miles apart, such as Knebworth and Codicote in my constituency, receive their own dedicated community support officer with transport. At present, Knebworth and Codicote share a CSO who, in turn, must share transport with several other officers based elsewhere in the county. That reduces the amount of time that he can spend on the beat and makes policing less effective.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question, which shows that, such is the success of CSOs, communities increasingly want them to be in two places at once. Hertfordshire constabulary has 110 CSOs, but aims to have 359 as part of the expansion to which I referred. It is for the chief constable to decide how those officers are deployed, but I am sure that he will have heard her wish that the communities of Knebworth and Codicote should be better served once that expansion is complete.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister accept that CSOs, as welcome as they are, should always be in addition to, and never in place of, police officers? Can he give the House an assurance that, following amalgamation, there will be more police officers in rural areas, not just more support officers.

Andy Burnham: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is indeed the case that CSOs are additional to police officers. He will know that the strength of the police force is significantly greater now than it was in 1997. CSOs are playing an extremely valuable role, the very nature of which means that they are out and about in their community and highly visible. They are increasingly valued by communities, but he is right that they should always be additional to the basic policing strength. It is for chief constables to decide how best to deploy the resources at their disposal.

Victims of Crime (Support)

Ian Austin: What recent steps he has taken to support victims of crime.

Fiona Mactaggart: The code of practice for victims of crime is now in place to deliver new rights for victims, and from April victims can enforce their rights through the parliamentary ombudsman. We have increased funding for victims, and Victim Support's funding has increased from under £12 million to £30 million. In our Green Paper, "Rebuilding lives: supporting victims of crime", we set out plans to improve support for victims of crime by refocusing the criminal injuries compensation scheme to provide more financial help for those most seriously injured and immediate, practical help for other victims through victim care units.

Ian Austin: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. The whole House will welcome measures that show victims that we are on their side, but can she ensure that judges are properly advised by the Lord Chancellor to ensure that victims receive full compensation to reimburse them for losses caused by criminal activity? How can we do more to help people such as a constituent of mine, who is due to receive only half of the £8,000 loss that he suffered after being deceived into paying for stolen goods? He will have to wait two years for it, because the crook only has to pay it weekly, even though the police have seized his assets.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right that one important way to make criminals pay for crime is to recompense victims. We have put more effort into compensation orders, but the current collection level is unfortunately only 60 per cent., which is inadequate—it is better than it used to be, but it is still inadequate. My hon. Friends in the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Solicitor-General are working together to ensure better enforcement of compensation orders and fines, including blitzes, the roll-out of the Courts Act 2003 and other actions, which I predict will improve the situation in general and for my hon. Friend's constituent.

Susan Kramer: Is the Minister aware that the families of murder victims can pay as much as £7,000 to obtain copies of the transcript of the trial of the accused? Such families are often so traumatised by the trial that they need to read the transcript in order to come to terms with events and to decide whether to seek an appeal. The Home Office has talked to a few people about making transcripts free to families, but that has not happened so far. Victims' Voice and Justice for Victims in my constituency are getting daily calls about the matter, so will the Minister make those transcripts free?

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Lady is right that that is a concern, particularly when victims have been bereaved through homicide. The national victims advisory panel has discussed the matter extensively, and we are currently investigating whether it is possible to use new technology to make written records from tape-recorded records. We are continuing to investigate making the transcripts of trials available to the bereaved, but although we are closer to resolving the matter, we are yet to find a solution.

John Denham: I welcome everything that the Government have done to improve support for victims, but once the sentence has been handed down, most victims lose track of what happens to the offender. What plans does my hon. Friend have to give victims the right routinely to know whether fines are paid, whether community sentences are served, whether drug treatment orders are complied with and the length of prison sentence actually served?

Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend is aware that the victims code includes improved rights for victims, which cover, for example, the release of a dangerous offender from prison. Appropriate rights for victims are the first step, and we are discussing with the victims advisory panel what further rights should be available to victims. We will also discuss the matter with the new victims commissioner, when they are appointed—the appointment process will begin shortly. Under the victims code, some of the rights to which my right hon. Friend has referred will be available to victims, and for the first time from April, if a victim does not get those rights, they can appeal to the ombudsman.

Community Policing (Merseyside)

John Pugh: If he will make a statement on the development of community policing in Merseyside.

Paul Goggins: The Government are committed to the extension of neighbourhood policing to all parts of England and Wales by 2008. Merseyside is a key partner in the development of that approach, which includes highly visible policing, easier access to individual officers and stronger accountability to local communities.

John Pugh: In my constituency, we have had a series of neighbourhood policing plans, a new chief inspector almost every year and the constant rotation of local bobbies. We should monitor turnover, because it would help neighbourhood policing if the police were to stay in the neighbourhood.

Paul Goggins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who puts his finger on an important issue. I hope that he will take some encouragement from the commitment that is being made as part of the current restructuring of community policing in his area, whereby ward-based officers will not be removed from their neighbourhood policing duties whatever else may be happening. That links back to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier about the need to ensure that those who are dedicated to community and neighbourhood policing are able to continue that job whatever else may be happening in the wider community.

Wayne David: I am sure that police community support officers play a critical role in community policing in Merseyside, as they do elsewhere. Does the Minister have any proposals to increase their powers in Merseyside and elsewhere?

Paul Goggins: We are considering what the standard powers of community support officers should be to ensure that they are properly empowered by the chief constable to work as part of the neighbourhood policing team. We want them to work in a highly visible way with police officers, community wardens and others to ensure not only that local people are reassured by their highly visible presence, but that we crack down on crime in those neighbourhoods.

Mark Francois: The cost of community policing ultimately has to be met by council tax payers in Merseyside, as in any other part of the country. Why should council tax payers in Merseyside, or anywhere else, have to pay through the nose for their policing in future because of the Government's obsession with regionalisation?

Paul Goggins: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. The neighbourhood policing fund, which is funding the community support officers who are so welcomed by Members on this side of the House—and, I take it, by all Members—is the result of the Government's major investment of £88 million in the year that is about to start and £340 million in 2007–08. That means that we can move forward to the commitment of 24,000 community support officers by 2008.

Identity Cards

Anne Begg: How the introduction of identity cards will prevent identity theft and fraud.

Charles Clarke: Identity fraud costs the economy at least £1.3 billion every year, and all the evidence shows that the threat is rising. The ID cards scheme will tackle the problem by recording biometric information so that we are able to detect people who try to register multiple identities to commit fraud, or for other, worse, purposes. The scheme will also allow individuals and organisations to verify identity to a much greater degree of certainty than at present.

Anne Begg: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I have constituents who look forward to the introduction of ID cards because they have had their identities stolen and found it very difficult to prove exactly who they are. However, other constituents who write to me are concerned that the very introduction of ID cards will not be safe and that the data will not be secure because the national database will be susceptible to fraud or to being hacked into so that the data on it are corrupted. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to those constituents that that will not happen?

Charles Clarke: I hear absolute assurances—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I give assurances that the security of the database will be our absolute priority in all circumstances. Perhaps I can go even further. All of the many databases that are held about all of us in this House—whether they concern finances, health or passports, or are in the private or the public sector—are insecure to a degree while we do not have an ID cards system. The ID cards system will provide security not only for the identity database itself but for all the other databases that hold data about the whole of this country.

Adam Afriyie: Which part of the Government's ID cards policy stems from the socialist traditions of the Labour party?

Charles Clarke: I think, although I have not checked up on my texts recently, that it is pretty socialist to say that an individual should possess their own identity and not have it stolen by somebody else. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is suggesting that that is not a socialist tenet—I shall take his authority on that—but I think that it is a pretty strong basis.

David Winnick: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend, in the friendliest way possible, that it might be useful if the Cabinet looked again at the whole issue of identity cards in view of the growing concern about not only the cost, but the database, about which, unlike other databases that he has mentioned, the Information Commissioner has issued a very clear warning over privacy and civil liberties? As regards the previous question, is it not a fact that the last leader of the Tory party was very keen on identity cards?

Charles Clarke: Actually, the last leader of the Tory party was keen at the beginning but not at the end. The Tories wibble-wobbled throughout. The current leader has taken yet another position in the past day or so.
	I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. As the arguments about costs, the security of the system and the need for it have become more widespread and better understood, support for ID cards has increased. It is a critical measure to enable us to provide security for people in this country and we shall proceed with it.

John Redwood: Given that the Government have issued more national insurance numbers than there are people eligible to receive them, and given the active market in illegal passports, why should we believe that they will get it right this time? Why cannot the Government get it right in those important cases in which they already hold data?

Charles Clarke: If we take the passport example, which was controversial only a few years ago, the Passport Agency now has greater consumer appreciation of what it does than anyone else, including all major high street suppliers and so on. I pay tribute to it for that. It has undertaken a major IT project involving 40 million records successfully, systematically and positively. That is the model for what we should do and that is why the ID cards system has been given to it.

Michael Connarty: I do not have the same concern about the falsification of passports, having been with Europol to ascertain how easy that is. However, I am deeply concerned about the recent major tax credit fraud using the information, details and identities of civil servants in Departments. I am told that those identities are very secure. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, if people can intervene with civil servants' identity passes, ID cards will be protected from such intervention?

Charles Clarke: That is precisely the point. The biometrics that the ID cards will possess and those that are already being introduced in passports provide the assurances for the non-biometric schemes, which my hon. Friend described, that have given rise to such fraud. We need more security to give individuals and organisations the confidence that they need. The ID cards will provide that.

John Bercow: Given that, despite the Home Secretary's protestations to the contrary, reliance on a single reference source to establish identity will tend to maximise, not reduce the threat of fraud, and that all the Government's arguments have been consistently rebutted, why is the right hon. Gentleman hell bent on introducing a compulsory ID card scheme with a cost that he will not effectively calculate, for a benefit that he cannot properly quantify and at a risk to individual privacy that he dare not admit?

Charles Clarke: As I said earlier and in various debates in this place, every single one of those arguments is wrong. I am sure that we will have the opportunity to debate some of them in the Commons in due course, and that is the right way to tackle them. However, the hon. Gentleman's assertions about cost, liberty and so on are simply wrong.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Jim Cunningham: How many antisocial behaviour orders were issued in 2005 in (a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands.

Hazel Blears: The number of antisocial behaviour orders issued, as notified to the Home Office, from 1 January 2005 to 30 June 2005, in the local government authority area of Coventry city council is 12. During that period, a total of 142 ASBOs have been issued in the west midlands criminal justice system area.

Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend recall that Coventry Members of Parliament pushed for the introduction of ASBOs? Indeed, Coventry was one of the first places in the country to use them, but how many people have reoffended in Coventry and the west midlands?

Hazel Blears: I congratulate my hon. Friend and many other Members of Parliament who have pushed for tough and swift enforcement action against antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend's constituency is one of our Together Action areas, which have been at the forefront of leading the fight against antisocial behaviour.
	I do not have the specific figures that my hon. Friend has requested today, but I shall write to him with the details. In action areas such as his, the number of people who believe that antisocial behaviour is a big problem has reduced from 25 per cent. only two years ago to 19 per cent. now. That drop of 6 per cent. is a tribute to the people, the police and the local authority—all of them have genuinely taken action.

Jeremy Wright: I am sure that the Minister agrees that making an ASBO is of no value if it is not enforced. What will the Government do to reduce the paperwork burden on the police so that they have the time and opportunity to enforce the orders that the courts make?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made about 9,000 forms obsolete. We have also introduced video identity parades, and parades that used to take weeks to arrange can now be done in a matter of hours. We are trialling hand-held computers in a whole range of forces, so that police officers do not need to go back to the station so often. The police have also issued more than 170,000 penalty notices for disorder. This has saved them thousands of hours of police officers' time, which can now be used to tackle the problems that the public think are a real priority.

Patrick McFadden: The Minister will be aware that antisocial behaviour orders have been warmly welcomed in local communities, not least by the many young people who make such a positive contribution to society. She will also be aware, however, that some people in this field seek new measures to make it easier to obtain antisocial behaviour orders, fixed penalty notices and other measures. Will she set out for the House what measures there are in the respect action plan, published last week, to make it easier for the police and other agencies to obtain antisocial behaviour orders, fixed penalty notices and other such measures?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right to say that people have used these powers to great effect in some areas. Indeed, the police in Wolverhampton have been closing crack houses, and they have secured 25 antisocial behaviour orders, which has made a real difference. Under the respect action plan, we want to consult on a closure order that will give the right to close either residential or licensed premises within 24 or 48 hours, to bring respite to communities that are suffering from serious antisocial behaviour. We want to ensure that there is a power for conditional cautions, so that people can be made to do visible unpaid work very soon after engaging in their antisocial behaviour. We also want to make antisocial behaviour injunctions and local authority injunctions work better. There is a whole range of enforcement issues in the respect action plan. Hon. Members will know, however, that it also contains—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the right hon. Lady that I have to give other hon. Members a chance to speak.

Philip Hollobone: Is the Minister aware that it is very difficult to apply for and obtain an antisocial behaviour order? Is she also aware that 40 per cent. of them are breached, and that a pathetically small percentage of those breaches end up being prosecuted, especially among the under-16s? What is she going to about that?

Hazel Blears: First, I reject the hon. Gentleman's assertion that antisocial behaviour orders are virtually impossible to obtain. There are now 6,500 antisocial behaviour orders across the country. I do not have a league table—I do not want to judge people on how many orders they have—but many police areas and local authorities have now got their act together and are able to obtain the orders. The hon. Gentleman said that 40 per cent. of the orders are breached; 60 per cent. of them are not, which means that peace and harmony have been brought to those communities. When they are breached, it is vital that enforcement action is taken swiftly in the areas that are using these powers.

Iraq (Asylum Applicants)

Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on recent progress in returning failed asylum applicants to Iraq.

Tony McNulty: There have been some 1,371 voluntary returns to Iraq since July 2003. In 2004, the Home Office announced its intention to commence an enforced returns policy to Iraq. As with all nationalities, removals will be enforced on a case-by-case basis, and the immigration service will return people only to those areas of Iraq assessed as being sufficiently stable and where we are satisfied that the individual concerned will not be at risk. The first enforced returns to Iraq took place on 20 November 2005, when 15 Iraqis were removed on a forced basis.

Ann McKechin: The Minister will appreciate that a large number of Iraqi applicants have now been residing in the United Kingdom for more than three years. They come from the parts of Iraq to which we are unlikely, in the short to medium term, to be able to guarantee them a safe return. As a result, they are left in a very unsatisfactory limbo. Will the Minister consider either granting an amnesty to these people or allowing them to work for a limited period until we can determine whether the security position in Iraq, especially in the Baghdad area, is likely to improve?

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend has asked an entirely fair question. There are no plans for any such amnesty for asylum seekers—from Iraq or any other nation—whose applications have failed. In relation to whether those who cannot immediately be returned should be allowed to work or afforded some kind of temporary status, these matters are always kept under review, so I would never say never.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome the Minister's commitment to a case-by-case review of the forced return of failed asylum seekers to parts of Iraq deemed to be safe. Given the deep anxiety not just about that but about removal of asylum seeker families with children to many countries that, though nominally safe, are in reality in turmoil, with large amounts of violent civil conflict, will the Minister give a commitment to a case-by-case review of the forced return of asylum seekers with families to places such as Congo and Sudan as well as to Iraq?

Tony McNulty: I can only repeat what I said in my previous answer. All cases that are deemed ready for enforced returns are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of the country. Rather than narrowing that down to particular segments of the failed asylum seeker community as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I would prefer to keep it at the   level at which the personal circumstances and the circumstances of the country for that individual, on a case-by-case basis, must be paramount. I repeat, however, as I said last week, that it must be in everyone's interest that when people, for whatever reason, fail in their application for asylum, we must collectively do all that we can to ensure voluntary rather than enforced returns.

DNA Database

Chris Bryant: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the national DNA database.

Andy Burnham: As the recent report on the DNA expansion programme confirms, the national DNA database is a key police intelligence tool and provides the police with around 3,000 intelligence matches each month, which are critical leads for police investigations. There has been a fourfold increase in the number of detections obtained through the use of DNA between 1999 and 2005. The database is helping to secure more convictions and bring more offenders to justice.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will know that 88 murders once considered cold cases have now been solved thanks to the DNA database. Three of those were in Wales, and 11 stranger rape cases have also been solved in Wales as a result of the database. I urge him not to listen to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who says that it is an intolerable attack on human rights, or to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who seems to think that it is an irrelevance. Will the Minister push forward with the DNA database so that we can solve more cold-case crimes?

Andy Burnham: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's points. In particular, people who have been arrested for offences and whose DNA has been held have been linked to 3,000 offences, including 37 murders, 16 attempted murders and 90 rapes. Those leads are giving justice to families who could not previously have their case concluded. The database is extremely important and provides the police with a vastly important intelligence tool. We should celebrate its expansion rather than, as some others have done, seek to nit-pick and carp at every available opportunity.

Points of Order

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the respect action plan, I made inquiries at the Vote Office as to whether I could get hold of a copy and was told that I could not do so. I am aware that a copy has been deposited in the Library of the House, but it strikes me that something that has been given the full weight of the Prime Minister's authority, and that is built up in such an incredibly self-important manner, should be available to Members of the House in the Vote Office. Please can you investigate this matter and take whatever action that you feel necessary?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has given me some notice, so I am able to help him on this matter. The Government's respect action plan is not a parliamentary paper, so the Vote Office does not automatically hold copies. From time to time, Departments make available to Members through the Vote Office documents that they have published informally and that are linked to the work of the House. That is helpful, and I hope that Departments will continue to do that.

David Willetts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance on how best we can correct an inadvertently misleading statement to the House of Commons? In the Secretary of State for Education's statement last Thursday, she said:
	"Where a teacher is convicted of one of a number of specified offences they will automatically be included on List 99, which bars them for life from working in schools."—[Official Report, 12 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 435.]
	Since then, we have discovered that that bar is not automatic and does not bar teachers for life from working in schools. May I ask you how best we could secure the attendance of the Secretary of State for Education in the House to correct a statement that has caused further confusion and alarm to parents and teachers?

Mr. Speaker: I listened to the statement of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and she said that she was coming back to the House this week, which would be an appropriate time for the hon. Gentleman to raise that question.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Equality Bill [Lords]

[Relevant document: The Fourth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2005–06, HC 766, on Legislative Scrutiny: Equality Bill.]
	As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment

'(1)   The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about discrimination or harassment on grounds of gender reassignment.
	(2)   In section (1) "gender reassignment" has the meaning given by subsection 36.
	(3)   The regulations may, in particular—
	(a)   make provision of a kind similar to Part 2 of this Act;
	(b)   define discrimination;
	(c)   define harassment;
	(d)   make provision for enforcement (which may, in particular, include provision—
	(i)   creating a criminal offence of a kind similar to, and with the same maximum penalties as, an offence created by an enactment relating to discrimination or equality,
	(ii)   about validity and revision of contracts,
	(iii)   about discriminatory advertisements, and
	(iv)   about instructing or causing discrimination or harassment;
	(e)   provide for exceptions (whether or not of a kind similar to those provided for by Part 2 of this Act or any other enactment relating to discrimination or equality);
	(f)   make provisions which apply generally or only in specified cases or circumstances;
	(g)   make different provisions or different cases or circumstances;
	(h)   include incidental or consequential provision (which may include provision for amending an enactment);
	(i)   include transitional provision.
	(4)   The regulations—
	(a)   shall be made by statutory instrument, and
	(b)   may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(5)   In subsection (3) (h) "enactment" includes an enactment in or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.'. —[Lynne Jones.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Lynne Jones: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
	The new clause is intended to enable the protection of transsexual people from discrimination in the supply of   goods and services by creating a power to introduce secondary legislation. It is a near copy of the provisions relating to the provisions on sexual orientation, which the Minister will be aware were not in the original Bill as introduced in the House of Lords, but were by the time it came to be considered by this House. That was partly as a result of the pressure applied by other hon. Members, including those, such as myself, who signed early-day motion 710 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner).
	That was a very welcome move on the part of the Government and it is unfortunate that the Government have so far chosen to ignore the requests for a similar provision in the case of transgender people; for example, 88 hon. Members signed early-day motion 1083 in my name on the Equality Bill and the supply of goods and services to transsexual people.
	There are three reasons for including the provision now: the need for protection, administrative efficiency and compliance with EU law. Society is much more   accepting of transpeople today. The Gender Recognition Act 2002 was passed unopposed with all-party support, a far cry from 1994 when there was widespread discrimination against transsexual people, which led me to found the parliamentary forum on transsexualism.
	At that time, Ministers tolerated blatant discrimination in employment against transpeople. Nevertheless, discrimination continues. It took five years to see the introduction of the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999, which amended the Sex Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination in employment and vocational training. However, those regulations do not extend to discrimination in the supply of goods and services.
	The media have reported several cases involving transsexual people refused access to pubs. Press for Change, the lobby group on behalf of transpeople, is particularly concerned about young transsexual people who are forced to leave home when relationships with their families break down. Discrimination by private and institutional landlords means that these young and vulnerable transsexual people often encounter great difficulty in finding accommodation.
	The more widespread problem is that without legal protection against prejudice, many transsexual people censor their lives by taking care to avoid situations where they feel discrimination, knowing that the law currently leaves them with no redress. In that regard, we have made little progress since the time shortly after I   was elected in 1992, when I was approached by a transsexual woman who was absolutely terrified of her gender status becoming known by her employer. It was that kind of discrimination that led to legal challenge and to the regulations that I have mentioned.
	In relation to the provision of goods and services, a few test cases have so far come to court, but most potential litigants stand down when advised that they   have no case as the law currently stands. As I have said, the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations amended the Sex Discrimination Act in 1999 to prohibit discrimination in employment and vocational training. This was done to implement the 1996 ruling in the European Court of Justice in the case of P v S and Cornwall county council. That was the case of a transsexual woman who, having initially been promoted by the council, was then sacked by it when she informed it that she was going to undergo gender reassignment surgery.
	The directive determined that discrimination on the ground of sex includes discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment. Because the 1999 regulations were   introduced under the terms of the European Communities Act 1972, they could not exceed the scope of the equal treatment directive. They extend only to employment and vocational training, and not to the rest of part III of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
	An opportunity to legislate for goods and services protection arose with the Gender Recognition Act 2004. At that time, however, Ministers preferred to wait for the outcome of discussions on a new EU directive on gender discrimination in goods and services. In Committee, the then Minister with responsibility for   such matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), responded to a query from me as follows:
	"She is right in saying that there is nothing to prevent the Government from acting. However, as I indicated, we are in discussion with our partners in Europe. We have a draft directive as of three months ago, and it appears that there will be legislation on the matter. The Government welcome that and believe that it is right to have that dialogue with our European partners, come to a conclusion and then take the matter forward."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 March 2004; c. 186.]
	That conclusion was reached later in 2004. European Council directive 2004/113/EC, of 13 December 2004, implemented the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to, and supply of, goods and services. However, no provision was made in the Equality Bill to implement the directive, which surely would have been the obvious means of dealing with the issue. The Equality Bill is therefore the second missed legislative opportunity to provide that protection for transpeople.
	One major concern that the Government expressed about introducing such protection through the Bill was that a substantial amount of work would be required in considering whether any exceptions were necessary. Given that the 1975 Act already contains exceptions to cope with single-sex facilities, it should not be considered problematic that new exceptions are required to permit continued discrimination against transpeople. However, there are likely to be rare and complex situations in which exceptions may be needed—probably those involving people in the process of changing gender. The new clause would address that by introducing a power for Ministers to issue regulations creating exceptions. It is intentionally constructed as a replica of clause 81, which creates a power to introduce goods and services protection on the ground of sexual orientation. The new clause can therefore be presumed to be acceptable to the Government as a workable framework.
	However, the power to make regulations would allow Ministers to make any special provision that might be necessary, and it would ensure that Parliament does not have to satisfy itself at this stage that all possible exceptions have been considered. The provision allows more time and flexibility to ensure that the protection can be provided now, and in a way that works.
	Ministers have argued that it is not the right time for such a step. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), the Minister referred on Second Reading to the Government's equalities review and the discrimination law review, with a view to the inclusion of any changes in the   promised single equality Act. However, as the Government are aware, waiting for a single equality Act would risk leaving the UK in breach of its obligations under EU law. The directive that I mentioned earlier, which implemented the principle of equal treatment in the access to and supply of goods and services, does not explicitly refer to transpeople or to gender reassignment. However, the minutes of the Council meeting include an explicit note that the directive should be determined in the light of the 1996 European Court of Justice ruling in   the P v. S and Cornwall county council case, which I   mentioned earlier also. In that case, the European Court of Justice held that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex should be construed to include discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment.
	Goods and services protection for transpeople will therefore be required no later than December 2007, when the directive enters into force. It is very unlikely that a single equality Act will be passed by Parliament and have entered into force in time to meet that obligation. It would, of course, be possible to implement earlier the directive to implement goods and services protection by making regulations under the European Communities Act, which I understand is the Government's intention. That appears, however, to be little different from using the Equality Bill now to create a power for regulation, and I am therefore confused about why the Government are not taking that opportunity, particularly as it would enable some areas not included in the European directive to be addressed. Some areas protected by the goods and services protection provided under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 fall outside the scope of the EU directive. Education, as a reserved area, is one example, and media representation another. Clearly, in introducing regulations under the European Communities Act, the Government will not be able to extend protection in those areas.

John Bercow: I respect the hon. Lady's record in this field and strongly support her new clause. I put it to her that the Government's rationale for not acting now is no more compelling than the rationale that they offered in the other place in the first instance in respect of the similar problem of goods and services discrimination against lesbians and gay men. In fairness to Ministers, I may say that on that occasion, not least under pressure from the noble Lord Alli, the Government saw sense and conceded the need to act. Should they not do so in this case, too, on grounds both of equity and of efficient use of parliamentary time?

Lynne Jones: I was coming to the point about administrative efficiency and entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, in many ways the issues concerning transpeople are perhaps a little easier for the Government to deal with than those concerning lesbians and gay men; we already have gender regulations in relation to employment, which cover many complex areas. I have with me, for example, a guide to the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999, which covers employment where it is required for employees to share the same accommodation. A lot of issues that might require detailed scrutiny have already been dealt with in those regulations.
	Work is already under way within the Government on regulations to implement the Equality Bill's provision for protection against discrimination in the supply of goods and services on grounds of sexual orientation. Many of the issues raised by discrimination against transpeople are similar to that. For example, religious bodies have similar concerns, and many organisations address the issues on the ground jointly through a lesbian and gay network and bisexual and trans framework.
	Even if the Government introduce regulations, however, goods and services protection will not be comprehensive for transpeople. The means by which the Government propose to implement the EU directive will result in our missing the opportunity to introduce protection in these crucial areas. In addition, it will add unnecessary complexity to the law. It therefore makes administrative sense for the work on discrimination against transpeople to follow on quickly from the work on sexual orientation, rather than being left until the Equality Bill has passed through the House. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will accept new clause 9—I know that they are committed to introducing this protection for transpeople.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this point now, because it does not directly relate to the business at hand, but I wanted to give you notice of this point of order. I hope that this is an apposite moment. You will know that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) is not present and, indeed, is incommunicado. However, he managed to sign last Thursday 12 early-day motions, which appear on today's Order Paper. One of them, early-day motion 1297, is about abandoned animals at Christmas, but I do not know whether cats were included. Is it in order for an hon. Member who is not present and has no means   of being in communication with this House to sign early-day motions? I suggest that it might be worth while investigating how he has managed to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I do watch "Big Brother" and I saw the one about the cat and the one about the boxers. I know that some hon. Members give authority to another hon. Member to put their names on early-day motions, but I cannot think of any hon. Member who would do so in this instance. I will look into the matter, and that is the best that I can do. I will also continue watching "Big Brother" in my spare time.

Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge that this is an exceptionally important debate and I do not want to digress from it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has raised an important point. In considering that point,   Mr. Speaker, will you find out whether any of the early-day motions have been tabled during the incarceration of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway), because if so, it is difficult to see how he could provide authority for them to be signed?

Mr. Speaker: As I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I will look into the matter. It could be a question of authority to add a name being given to another hon. Member, so we will continue with the debate unless I get into serious difficulties for promoting a television programme—I use that term lightly.

Eleanor Laing: New clause 9 should be an essential part of this Bill. As my   hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John   Bercow) said most eloquently a few moments ago, there is no logical reason why protection from potential discrimination on the ground of transgender should be treated any differently from protection from potential discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. The Opposition were pleased that the Government were flexible, far-seeing and honest enough to accept the amendments in the other place that have led to the addition to the Bill of protection from potential discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. It is a matter of simple logic and reason to say that the same protection should be afforded to people who have chosen to change gender. We have already passed legislation to make formal the status of transgender and we all appreciate that there is no reason why people should not have that protection.
	I understand why the Minister is likely to argue that the Government do not want to include the new clause at this time: they want to give the matter further consideration as it is part of an ongoing review. We discussed the matter at some length in Committee in a constructive debate. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) proposed the new clause in a thorough and meaningful way and she speaks for many, many Labour Members. She speaks for many Conservative Members, too, and she has the full support of the Opposition Front Bench.

Sandra Gidley: I have little to add to the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who put the case well. Although it is welcome that during the passage of the Bill the Government have extended goods, facilities and services protection on the ground of sexual orientation, there seems no reason not to extend the provision on the ground of transgender.
	In Committee, the Minister was pressed repeatedly to give an assurance that the directive implementation date of December 2007 would be fully met, yet failed, unfortunately, to produce any such reassurance. I accept the need to get the measure right and iron out the fine details, but as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, this will be the second missed opportunity to address that aspect of inequality. In 2004, the then Minister said that a review was ongoing and that something was expected within a year. However, almost 18 months later we are no further forward.
	The simple reality is that if we wait for the Act to be passed, we will have missed an opportunity to implement the directive fully and to extend the provision, because, as has already been pointed out, education and the media are not covered. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the process, give us assurances that the directive will be fully implemented and indicate where we go from here. Only a small group of people may be affected and it is important that we get the provision right, but the Government have had enough time.

Tim Boswell: I, too, signed the new clause moved so ably by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and, on the basis of our past association during the passage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, I want to say how much I admired both her constructive approach to those macro-debates and the clear way in which she proposed the new clause. On both, more often than not, I agreed with her—and, indeed, with other Members. This is not fundamentally a party political issue. That is why the Government should catch the tide and eliminate discrimination in one of the few remaining areas that is as yet inadequately covered by our legislative arrangements, and should do so in the way that the hon. Lady put so clearly to the House. She invites us to accept a new clause that is framed to give the maximum possible flexibility of detailed implementation, if there are detailed or technical issues that need further thought and ultimate resolution—as there usually are, in my experience. I am with her on that.
	I regret that owing to other duties, which we sometimes have, I have been a country member of the debates on the Equality Bill. That does not signify any lack of support for it; it merely means that I have not been able to participate in the Committee and listen to   the detailed discussions that have taken place. One by-product of that is that coming to the new clause fresh, as it were, without having been a direct participant in the debates in Committee, it seems odd that nothing has been done in this area.
	I have three points to put to the House. First, I   disagree slightly with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who rightly said—I do not disagree about this—that there have been great advances in our approach to transgendered people. Nevertheless, my experience of people in such a situation is that there is still a real sensitivity and scope, to put it no less strongly, for wide misunderstanding among the general public of the position of transgendered people, not least because they are such a small minority.
	Frankly, I would have known little about it, and might have had less sympathy than I have, if one of my constituents, who is very articulate, had not been able to brief me extensively during the passage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. My constituent has gone through a marriage annulment and, I think, the first civil partnership in the country under the accelerated procedure. I was delighted to congratulate her on that relationship, which I hope will last. She is an excellent person who shows some measure of the quality of people who are transgendered and who are being disregarded and sometimes demeaned by society.
	There was some unpleasant press comment last week about somebody who had sought a reversal operation after an initial operation. That was the old Adam coming out, at least in the press, in people who are still unsympathetic to transgendered people. It seems offensive to have a situation in which the small number of transgendered people—probably a handful in each constituency—feel that they are being singled out at a time when other people's inequalities are being addressed.
	Secondly, I should like the Minister to comment on another issue in her response. I remember well from our exchanges in Committee, when considering the 2004 Act, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak bringing forward some interesting legal opinion and comments—on which we did not have a wholly satisfactory answer from the Government—in the relation to The Hague convention on the operation of private international law.
	Increasingly, there will be situations—I notice the Minister looking a little quizzical—where persons who find themselves translated to the UK, either as temporary visitors or permanent residents, may have private rights attaching to them through their membership of other member states of the European Union. That creates a further anomaly that Ministers may need to consider, quite apart from non-compliance with the European directive in time, which I would have thought they would take seriously, but instead they seem to be taking a casual attitude.
	Thirdly, on discrimination, it seems daft that under the legislation shopkeepers, for example, will no longer be able to refuse services or the supply of goods on the grounds of people's sexual orientation or their religion, or for any other reason, but that the one area where they could continue to refuse would be in relation to transgendered issues. That seems grossly unfair and sends exactly the kind of signal on persecution, or demeaning people, that we should not be sending.
	Having not participated in the debates in Committee, I thought for an awful moment that the Government might, in some strange way—perhaps as the index of the ignorance that is still widely attached to such sensitive issues—have thought to themselves that the provisions on sexual orientation that they were making would, in some sense, cover gender reassignation. Of course, the provisions will not do that because gender reassignation has nothing whatever to do with sexual practices or orientation, nor does it imply anything for them. In that sense, if we are to rake around in moral concerns, it is much less "reprehensible"—I emphasise the inverted commas—to have undergone gender reassignment than to have a particular sexual orientation. I have no objection to the law dealing with those issues either, but I do not understand why the Government are so diffident about this issue.
	Finally, I shall emphasise a point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak made so eloquently. Her new clause is an entirely facilitative new clause. It provides for an order-making power and not for a precise set of criteria. Therefore, if there is a problem it is possible for Governments to accommodate that. However, to accommodate it by doing nothing at this stage will facilitate the condoning and permission of discrimination in this very narrow area for an indefinite period of a year or two, when that has no justification or merit and should be stopped.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly refers to the fact that we are debating provision for an order-making power. As part of a belt-and-braces approach for the Government, does he agree that if Ministers are anxious in some way that pressing ahead now risks error or a lack of satisfaction, the order-making power can be designed in such a way as to minimise that threat? Ministers can say that they will issue draft regulations that will be subject to wide-ranging consultation and that they will then subject the regulations to the affirmative procedure of the House.

Tim Boswell: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. Ministers have the maximum flexibility and the lowest level of commitment, but the House should not turn its back on the interests of transgendered people by rejecting the clause and saying that they alone should not be able to avail themselves of the equality agenda of which the Government are so proud and on which, as matter of record, I have supported them.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) for raising the issue and I pay tribute to the long-standing work that she has done. Like the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I, too, have two constituents who have come to me with issues surrounding transsexuality and transgender. One of them mentioned on many occasions the work that my hon. Friend had done, and for which we are all very grateful.
	As I said in Committee, I want to stress that the Government support the intention underpinning the   new clause, and to make it absolutely clear that we are committed to ensuring that transsexual people are protected against discrimination in the areas of goods, facilities and services. Work is already under way, within the context of the discrimination law review, to ensure that transsexual people gain the legal protection that we all agree should be available. That builds on the rights that the Government have already ensured for transsexual people through the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which several hon. Members have already mentioned.
	It has been argued that because the Bill contains an order-making power to extend protection against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, we should bring forward regulations to protect transsexual people. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, her new clause mirrors the provisions in clause 81. We are not persuaded, however, that legislating now to bring in a power to introduce the regulations that my hon. Friend is seeking is the right approach. The circumstances are far from identical. In many cases, discrimination issues facing transsexual people are not the same as those facing gay men and lesbians. We need to understand them properly before we legislate.
	I was very pleased to hear today—as I always am—the commitment of many Members to issues of equality, but I must reiterate to them, as I did on Second Reading, that the Bill was never designed to cover all equality issues. I fully understand the frustration felt by hon. Members because it takes time to achieve what we are setting out to do, but the discrimination law review is the mechanism that we have put in place to ensure that we have a proper approach. That will lead to a single equality Bill in the lifetime of this Parliament, which is our manifesto commitment.

Kali Mountford: I am trying to gather some understanding of my hon. Friend's position, especially as she says that we must learn about the experience of such discrimination and the way in which that is qualitatively different from other people's experience of discrimination, because I do not understand precisely what she is trying to get at. There is also a question of time. We are constrained not only by expectations—not least those of the community—but by the strictures on us due to the need to comply quickly with European legislation. Will she indicate how quickly she might reach that position of understanding?

Meg Munn: If my hon. Friend will bear with me on the question of timing, I shall come to it shortly. I will respond specifically to the matter because it was raised in Committee.

Tim Boswell: rose—

Meg Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself until I have responded to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford)?
	On the experiences of transsexual people, there are specific difficult questions that we must resolve. I am not saying that there are not answers to those questions—I   fully expect that there will be—but we must examine the provision of single-sex hospital wards and the situation in prisons. We must consider services that are provided to people that are based on their gender. I fully expect that we will find ways through that, but we must have a proper look at the matter. We also need to consider terminology and the way in which we define terms that are used in different ways, such as transsexual and transgender.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Lady is deploying arguments that, as far as I know, are precisely those that were advanced by Ministers in the other place against the inclusion of sexual orientation as a criterion—the   position was reversed as a result of the wisdom of the other place. Why is she persisting in making those arguments, and what is the difference between the two criteria?

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman wishes to establish why such an order-making power has not been added to the Bill. It is interesting to note that the Government are often criticised for making order-making powers, precisely because it is difficult to amend regulations after they are drafted, although the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) rightly pointed out that the affirmative procedure would be used. I am not 100 per cent. sure about this, but the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) might well have made that point before—he is smiling, so I think that I might be right. We would want to go down that route rarely.

Evan Harris: rose—

Meg Munn: I will make some progress because hon. Members might find that I refer to the points that they wish to raise. I am happy to ensure that I give way before the end of my speech if I have not answered their questions.
	Let me explain why and how we will move forward to provide protection for transsexual people. The work that we are already doing in the discrimination law review has highlighted the importance of making sure that the law takes proper account of the specific issues that transpeople face. We need to consult fully with them and the organisations that represent them, as well as those who will have responsibilities under law to ensure that we achieve well-focused and workable law. We will publish a consultation paper before the summer that will include our initial proposals and options for extending, beyond employment protection, protection against discrimination for transsexual people.
	The purpose of the discrimination law review is to produce proposals for a single equality Act, which we are committed to bringing forward in the life of this Parliament. It is precisely because there are differences between protection for different groups and anomalies in the existing framework that we have made the commitment to overhaul and simplify the statutory equality framework.
	The work to develop proposals on extending protection for transsexual people is being taken forward in the context of the discrimination law review for two reasons. First, we want to ensure that the new legal framework that will be set out in a single equality Bill can take account of the issues that transsexual people face. Working within the review means that can take a broad view of the protection from discrimination afforded to transsexual people. Secondly, we want the provisions that cover transsexual people—

Evan Harris: Will the Minister give way?

Meg Munn: I said to the hon. Gentleman that I wanted to proceed with my speech and that he might find that he did not need to intervene. If he still wishes to intervene, I shall happily give way before I sit down.
	Secondly, we want the provisions that cover transsexual people to benefit from the development, simplification and harmonisation that will be the outcome of the review.
	As hon. Members pointed out, the Government made sure that the EU gender directive on goods and services covered gender reassignment. That directive is due to be implemented by December 2007, and we have the option to use existing powers under the European Communities Act 1972 to make regulations to do so. We therefore already have two legislative vehicles to extend protection against discrimination to transsexual people, so further regulation-making powers are unnecessary.

Evan Harris: The problem with having to save up points is that one does not have time to make them all in an intervention, so I shall ask only one question. If the Minister is to meet the deadline for implementing the European directive through regulations, she will have to deal with the issues relating to hospital wards, prisons and so on within that time scale, so what stops her putting in the Bill regulation-making powers to enable her to deal with issues that she will have to deal with anyway under the European Communities Act mechanism?

Meg Munn: As I just said, that is unnecessary.

Lynne Jones: I want to comment on the two examples that my hon. Friend gave—single-sex hospital wards and prisons. The Prison Service has been working on guidelines on the treatment of transsexual prisoners for at least two years. I have tabled several parliamentary questions, and the last I heard was that those guidelines are almost ready or imminent. As for single-sex wards, the issues they raise are similar to those relating to joint accommodation in employment. I do not see that those issues are so problematic that the Government are prevented from accepting the amendment.

Meg Munn: As I said, I do not regard the issues as being without solutions. However, they need to be resolved and the solutions must be workable. I gave only two examples; there are others, of course.
	I hope that I have been able to make it clear that the Government are unequivocally committed to tackling discrimination against transsexual people.

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Gerald Kaufman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Meg Munn: I give way.

John Bercow: I think that the Minister is giving way to me rather than to her right hon. Friend, and I am grateful to her for doing so. As she knows, I hold her in the highest esteem, so I do not say this with any personal malice or resentment—but having listened very carefully to what she has said in the past 10 minutes, I   am none the wiser. It may be that I am a slow learner. Does she accept that, to me, her answer is thoroughly impenetrable? I cannot fathom a single good reason why the Government can act in a year or so's time when no great issue of minutiae or detail is involved, but are somehow incapable of acting now, as the House would prefer.

Meg Munn: What I have said is that because the EU directive sets out the matter, we are in a position to work through regulations to meet that time scale. We want to consider issues that go wider than the EU gender directive as part of the discrimination law review. I sincerely believe that there is a great deal to be gained from simplifying our legislation and having all discrimination law in one Act that sets out everyone's human rights, because equality affects us all. That is what I am trying to achieve through the discrimination law review.
	The issues are being worked on—they have not been put on the back burner. Discussion is ongoing and we are moving ahead. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Evan Harris: I was not proposing initially to add further to the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), but I wish to return to what the Minister said. It was difficult to engage as fully as we might have wanted, given that she wanted to make her position clear before taking interventions. I wish to make two points, but I do not speak for the mover of the new clause who, I am sure, will present her own view. We do not doubt the Minister's personal commitment to the issue that is before us, nor, indeed, the Government's overall objectives in creating a climate and a statute requiring non-discrimination. In those terms, her answer was particularly disappointing, as it was when I   raised the matter in Committee.
	The Government have decided, I am pleased to say, to take order-making powers in respect of sexual orientation. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John   Bercow) has already recognised that there is a moral imperative to do that because of the problems that are people have to face. There are two imperatives. First, there is the moral imperative, which is no less than the imperative that has already been conceded in respect of action following the enactment of the Bill in respect of sexual orientation discrimination. Therefore, it is hard to understand why the Minister does not take the opportunity of ensuring that she has regulation-making powers that will enable holistic regulations and laws to be made that cover also education and media portrayal, which are exempted from the European Communities Act 1972.
	The second imperative is the time scale that is placed upon us by the implementation date of the European directive. As I understand it, that does not apply in respect of sexual orientation. I think that the Minister said that she will definitely meet the deadline through the use of the European Communities Act regulations. If that is so, why not do the whole thing properly and have one consultation approach in time for the deadline and use the same mechanisms as have been proposed, which we are delighted to see, for dealing with sexual orientation discrimination?

John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not a matter only of principle, although the principle is itself extremely important? It is also a matter of practicality. Does he accept that unless the change is made sooner rather than later, it logically follows that the number of instances of discrimination will be that much more numerous? For transgendered people, discrimination and denial is not an occasional exception, it is a regular occurrence.

Evan Harris: That is right. It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know, given that my party introduced a single equality Bill proposal in another place through Lord Lester some years ago, that we believe that every year and every month that is wasted in not initiating quicker action in these areas will lead to more discrimination. However, we welcome the fact that the Government have made significant advances.
	The Minister gave two examples that came after she said that work had to be done to understand the sort of discrimination that was faced. I am sure that she did not mean this, but to the outside world that might seem as though the Government and those who helped to draft the law do not understand the sort of discrimination that is faced by transgender people. However, through the work of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), there are many in this place, as has been demonstrated by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who understand—and we believe that the Government similarly understand and recognise—what the problems are.
	Given that the Government will have to deal with the issue of hospital wards and prisons to implement the European directive deadline by the end of 2007, using regulations under the European Communities Act, it is not a convincing or logical argument to say that it is not possible to proceed through regulation-making powers in the Bill to provide a complete approach. Those matters will have to be dealt with in any event.
	If the Minister were to say that there were real difficulties in terms of education or media portrayal, which would take longer than the available time scale, I   would not accept that but it would be logical. In choosing the hon. Lady's examples from areas that fall within the deadline with which she must abide if she is not to fall foul of the European directive, she is not using either the logical or the strongest of arguments. Regardless of the intentions of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who will decide these issues for herself, I think that my hon. Friends will be keen to see the House divided on the issue, given that we have not had the undertakings or understandings that we deserve.

Gerald Kaufman: The Government have rightly accumulated a good deal of credit on this issue in previous legislation. I pay tribute to Christine Burns, who received an MBE for her work on gender issues and was among the constituents who drew my attention to the new clause. Given that the Government have accumulated a good deal of credit on the issue, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider her response in the light of the provision, which does not bind the Government or put them into a straitjacket. If it did so, I could accept her argument that time was needed to consider specific issues relating to transgendered people as distinct from people suffering from discrimination as a result of their sexual orientation.
	My hon. Friend says that the Government will undertake a consultation, but they would not be constricted in any way if the new clause were accepted, as proposed subsection (1) says:
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision".
	It does not say that the Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision. Proposed subsection (3) says that the "regulations may . . . make provision". It does not say that they shall make provision.
	The inclusion of the new clause in the Bill would not put the Government in a straitjacket, but if they did not accept it they would be in a straitjacket. We all know that legislative opportunities are constricted. The fact is that there is a Bill before the House that provides a vehicle to introduce the new clause. My hon. Friend—no one doubts her good faith—said that the Government wish to consider the issue as part of the   consultation. Several of us in the House would be a little more relaxed if we could be sure that within a reasonable period a legislative vehicle would be introduced so that changes could be made.

Meg Munn: I am happy to confirm that that is precisely our intention. We wish to ensure that the consultation is completed very quickly, and we will publish a Green Paper that deals with this and other issues very soon. We will then be in a position to introduce an appropriate legislative framework. We are therefore committed to deal with the issue. EU regulations, too, have been introduced, so I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance.

Gerald Kaufman: I am not questioning in any way the good faith of my hon. Friend or the Government. It is a fact of parliamentary life, however, that whatever the Government's conclusions, and even if the Green Paper that they promise to introduce includes precisely what is wanted, the constrictions of the legislative timetable mean that it is not possible to know when or, indeed, if legislation can be introduced in this Parliament to enact what my hon. Friend has promised in good faith. By contrast, the new clause gives the Government time and scope to deal with the issue, given its inclusion of the word "may", which I have cited twice. Acceptance would therefore not bind the Government or lead them into a cul-de-sac.
	Perhaps you could advise me, Mr. Speaker, on a procedural, not a policy, matter. If the Bill is amended today, I understand that it must return to the House of Lords because it is a Lords Bill. If that is so, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be satisfied by an assurance that the Government will reconsider the matter before the Bill's return to the House of Lords. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister responds positively, because nobody wants division in the House on this issue.

Lynne Jones: The Minister has given certain assurances. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the minimum requirement for the withdrawal of the new clause is an assurance that new legislation will be enacted within this Parliament? The problem with leaving the matter to the House of Lords is that if the Bill is not amended, it will not return to the House of Lords.

Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend is right, but I am trying to find a new way. It is possible, but far from certain, that the Bill will be amended today, and if it is amended the House of Lords will be able to reconsider the matter. The House of Lords can do anything when it reconsiders a Bill—it is not bound by the rules of procedure of this House—so it could bring the Bill back. Alternatively, the Government could provide an assurance in response to my hon. Friend's request, which is generous on her part, for a guarantee on the introduction of legislation within this Parliament. If that happens, I would support my hon. Friend in withdrawing her new clause, because nobody wants to divide on the issue—we want to unite.

Rob Marris: As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said much of what I   wanted to say, but I shall briefly repeat some points. I agree about the permissive word "may", which appears twice in the new clause.
	On whether the Government can reconsider the Bill in the House of Lords if it is amended in the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to two other avenues by which such legislative protection could be introduced within the lifetime of this Parliament. It would help if she were to repeat her assurance that the issue will be addressed within the lifetime of this Parliament and that there will be legislative provisions rather than simply a Green Paper.
	The Minister discussed the simplification and codification of anti-discrimination legislation and I share her objective, because the complicated layers of anti-discrimination measures that have built up over the past 40 years bedevil people in enforcing their rights. However, the wording of clause 81, which contains the   power to make regulations on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and which I support, is, with one or two key changes, almost exactly the same as   that of new clause 9. If it is too complicated to accept new clause 9 and introduce another layer of anti-discrimination legislation, then that argument can also be used in relation to the provisions on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in clause 81.

Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 9 does not mean that action will be taken, because it only says "may"? I have made the precise commitment asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). The discrimination law review will lead to a single equality Bill that will be passed in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is a manifesto commitment on which all Government Members stood before the election. As much as it is within my power to do so, I will ensure that that manifesto commitment is advanced, which meets the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak.

Rob Marris: I believe that there is a contradiction between what the Minister said about the new clause and clause 80, which I fully support. However, I am satisfied by her reassurance and hope that other hon. Members will be satisfied. I am grateful to her for that helpful reassurance.

Lynne Jones: I am not at all convinced by the Government's reasons for not accepting the new clause, but, in view of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman)—

Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Lady agree that although the whole House trusts this particular Minister, who has given us her assurance from the Dispatch Box, Conservative Members do not trust the rest of her Government to follow through what she has said? She cannot necessarily bring about what she says that she wants to bring about, so the time for action on the issue is not in the future but now.

Lynne Jones: I do not entirely agree that the Government are not trustworthy in this matter. I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance—

David Lepper: On the point made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), in 2001 I went with two of my constituents to meet the Minister's predecessor in the Home Office, who then dealt with these matters and who gave us an assurance that the Government would introduce a gender Act. From that day forward, we saw the Government take action, irrespective of who the Minister might be. With that precedent in mind, we can accept with confidence the assurance that she has given, even though she may not be in the post—I hope that she is—when the Bill is enacted.

Lynne Jones: I agree. The Minister's words will be recorded in the written record of these proceedings. The Government are fully aware of the cross-party support for this measure and of Labour Members' widespread support for my new clause.

Evan Harris: Of course, everyone welcomes the Minister's assurances as far as they go, but they do not go further than the assurances that she gave in Committee that there would be a single Equality Bill, which, presumably, if there is not an early election, will lead to a single Equality Act. The point of the new clause is to say that transgender rights in respect of non-discrimination in goods and services should be put through at the same time as those given to people discriminated against on the grounds of religion or sexual orientation. This excellent new clause gives the House that opportunity. That is why the Minister's promise of tomorrow is not good enough for many of us.

Lynne Jones: As I said, I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurances, although I ask her to look at the clause again. If the Government intend to legislate in this area and to introduce the EU directive, I still argue that a sensible way forward would be to accept the new clause. I accept that it is not possible for the Minister to agree to it today, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton suggested an alternative way forward, and either would be acceptable to me.
	I would prefer the matter to be dealt with in this Bill, because that is the most sensible way forward. However, in view of the assurance that legislation will be introduced in this Parliament, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 254.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Guidance on the application of prohibition in relation to school transport

'(1)   The Secretary of State shall issue guidance under this section setting out how the provisions of part 2 in relation to school transport shall be implemented.
	(2)   Such guidance under subsection (1) shall have particular regard to—
	(a)   the obligations retained for all schools which are public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998 to comply with the duty of non-discrimination irrespective of the exceptions which apply under this Act; and
	(b)   the duty not to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief and to carry out public functions with due regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to school transport under sections 51 (2) (b) and 52 (4) (k) and (v).
	(3)   Part 2 of this Act shall not come into force until the guidance issued under subsection (1) has been issued.'. — [Dr. Evan Harris.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Evan Harris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	New clause 10, which is in my name, has the support of Liberal Democrat Members. It deals with guidance in relation to school transport and wider parts of the Bill. It seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State issues guidance setting out how the provisions of part 2 on school transport and wider matters will be implemented. We ask that such guidance as the Government are, I hope, planning to introduce shall have particular regard to the obligations retained for all schools, which are public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998, to comply with the duty of non-discrimination, irrespective of the exceptions that apply under the Act.
	Clearly, there are exceptions in respect of discrimination law, but there is an overriding provision to respect human rights, especially in relation to non-discrimination—that is not a free-standing provision—in relation to certain other rights covered in the Bill, and that exceptions as implemented have to be for a legitimate purpose and must be proportionate.
	In particular, the new clause draws attention to the duty not to discriminate on the grounds of religion and belief and to carry out public functions with due regard to the Human Rights Act in relation to school transport under various sections of the Bill that deal with the subject. Crucially, the new clause suggests that this part of the Act should not come into force until the guidance under the new clause has been issued. The reason is that there are still major concerns about how the exceptions will be implemented in a way that is fair.
	I want to spend the rest of my short remarks reading from the fourth report of 2005–06 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which deals with the Equality Bill. The report makes two important recommendations in this area. The first is in paragraph 41 and says that the Committee did
	"not consider the exceptions under clause 49"
	—it is clause 50 in the version of the Bill that we are considering—
	"to be incompatible on their face with the Convention rights, they may in our assessment fail to prevent discrimination which would be contrary to the Human Rights Act."
	The Committee drew attention to the recommendations made in its previous report—the 16th report of 2004–05—and went on to say that it hoped
	"that the Bill would provide for statutory guidance to be produced before Part 2 comes into force, making clear that all schools that are public authorities under the Human Rights Act retain obligations to comply with ECHR rights of non-discrimination, irrespective of the exceptions which apply under the Bill. It is essential for any difference in treatment to be objectively justified in order to comply with Article 14 ECHR."
	That is clear and speaks for itself. However, I would like to note a Government amendment that I presume we will reach, if not debate, later that recognises that, in this area, the Government have limited the exception available to faith schools in respect of their ability to discriminate on the ground of religion by subjecting a pupil to any other detriment and, indeed, to expulsion if, for example, the child changes religion, having been admitted to a faith school. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have considered what was debated civilly in Committee and accepted that that was unnecessary and went too far. The need for guidance still applies and I want to hear how faith schools will apply their exceptions and what the Minister will say in respect of the time scale for guidance, as well as what that should cover.
	On school transport, the Minister will remember that there is a long-standing thorny issue in respect of the appropriate guidance. In Committee, I set out my concern and that of successive Select Committees at the inadequacy of the current guidance, and the fact that that is reinforced, if anything, by the explanatory notes to the Bill, which talk only about denominational schools, as if those parents who have children who they do not wish to go to a denominational school do not have the same rights to help if they need it to go a further distance to a non-denominational school. The Minister knows that that is the nub of the point. I refer again to the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, paragraph 49 of which states:
	"We are concerned that this current Bill does nothing to dispel, and may reinforce, the apparent misapprehension of some LEAs that it is permissible to discriminate against children of parents with non-religious convictions in the provision of school transport. We reiterate the concerns of the previous Committee, that guidance for LEAs on this matter"—
	it exists, as the Minister knows, in the form of a circular letter on school transport from the then Department for Education, dated 21 January 1994—
	"is inadequate to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act, and recommend that guidance should be produced under this Bill which should make clear that, as the Government has previously accepted, there is a duty under the Human Rights Act to make equal provision for school transport to support education in accordance with both religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs."
	I stress that the Bill should make equal provision in accordance with both religious and non-religious beliefs.
	Provided that the education system involves denominational schools, we Liberal Democrats recognise the need to provide help with school transport for children whose parents have religious beliefs and who wish to send their children to a school further away than their nearest one. The Minister will be well aware, however, that the guidance and local education authority practice seem to imply that those who do not have a religious belief do not qualify for the school transport concession.
	I hope that the Minister will repeat what she said in Committee by making it clear that the provision applies to those with, and without, religious beliefs, and that clear guidance will be produced in good time. Perhaps she might even ask the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee—the latter issued a critical report on the School Transport Bill in respect of these matters—to consider the guidance before it is published, in order to ensure that it is absolutely right. I hope, too, that she will put on the record the need for guidance in both those important areas. That way, the problems that parents without religious beliefs face because of the unfair way in which the school transport system sometimes operates can finally be rectified, after many years of trying to rectify them.

Dominic Grieve: I commend the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr.   Harris) on his ingenuity in tabling this new clause, which touches on an important issue. However, my experience of the problems of home-to-school transport as operated in my county, where there is selective education and, therefore, the need—in a way perhaps similar to that which he described—to do a great deal of juggling to get children to the appropriate school, makes me think that his proposal would cause massive headaches for local education authorities with very little benefit. I am bound to say, moreover, that the Minister would find it difficult to draw up guidelines, and even harder to implement them.
	If, as a result of this legislation, the Human Rights Act 1998 is infringed because of the way in which home-to-school transport is offered—and in a way that is unacceptable, even allowing for the exceptions provided for in the Bill—I have no doubt that somebody will take that case to court to get the situation clarified. I hope that the Minister is not encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's proposals, because they would cause intense muddle and land her and the Government with an impossible task.

Meg Munn: In Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) tabled similar amendments relating to guidance for school transport, which he then withdrew. In respect of school transport, the Bill contains exemptions for local education authorities and public authorities from the provisions on discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. Local education authorities have a statutory requirement to provide free home-to-school transport for certain pupils and they also have some scope to decide when transport is necessary in other circumstances. Each pupil's case will be considered on its merits, taking account of all relevant factors, including a parent's wish that their child attend a school of the religion or denomination to which they adhere. That discretion means that LEAs often provide subsidised transport for pupils of a particular faith to attend a school of that faith located outside the local area. An exemption from the Bill's discrimination provisions was included to ensure that that practice could continue. Otherwise, local education authorities would be vulnerable to challenge of transport policies that take into account the historical distribution of religious schools, which have often been built on out-of-town sites.
	I emphasise that local education authorities may—it is, indeed, our view that they should—provide subsidised transport to a non-faith school for a child whose parents are strongly opposed to their attending a faith school close to home. That, too, would be unlawful without the exception in the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister confirm that all those functions are, in fact, judicially reviewable, if a local education authority is not providing them in a fair and reasonable fashion?

Meg Munn: That is certainly my understanding.
	The exemption has been included merely as a protection for local education authorities against those who may use religion as the basis for a claim if they have not received free school transport for which they may have applied. There are no new school transport provisions in the Bill that warrant accompanying statutory guidance, yet this is the second time that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has tabled an amendment attempting to introduce such guidance. I have sympathy with some of his concerns about school transport and have already indicated, both in Committee and subsequently in writing, that I agree that policy on school transport needs updating. I can confirm that that is being addressed by the Department for Education and Skills.
	I have already agreed with the hon. Gentleman that new guidance is needed. I agree that it needs to make it clearer that cases of those seeking school transport to non-denominational schools should be treated in the same way as the cases of those who seek transport to denominational schools. I have indicated that new guidance will be produced, but it can be produced only by the DFES following consultation, development and the passage of the education and inspections Bill, which will, among other things, tackle school transport policy. We do not propose to produce statutory guidance for schools, but non-statutory guidance will be produced, which will make it clear that exceptions under the Bill do not override rights of non-discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1998.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the explanatory note to the Bill is not properly even-handed and we shall ensure that the note to the final Act puts that right.
	This Bill is totally different from the education and inspections Bill, which is progressing on a different time scale and is not as far advanced. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns; indeed, the interest he has shown with such tenacity has served to reinforce the need for guidance in this area, but it cannot be given under the Bill. I hope that, once again, he will agree to withdraw his new clause.

Evan Harris: The Minister's excellent speech got better as it went along, and was somewhat better received, at least by me, than the contribution of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who apparently takes the view that guidance confuses rather than guides. I have heard him on a number of occasions eloquently demanding that mystifying pieces of legislation, of which the Government are, no doubt, on occasion capable, should be explained through guidance. I guess that those areas must have been more carefully chosen than the one that I chose today. [Interruption.] I shall certainly give way to allow him to respond to my gentle teasing.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that I do not think that guidance may not, on occasion, be useful. My experience from having seen home-to-school transport in operation on many occasions is that guidelines are already in force in my local education authority area that are extremely complex. If people fall foul of them, they end up being taken to court. I do not think that a general, Government-issued set of guidelines will easily meet the multiplicity of problems that different local education authorities, each of which has completely different circumstances, face on home-to-school transport. It was the particular guidelines about which I was troubled, not necessarily guidelines in general.

Evan Harris: I am reassured and hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, if a party believes in better regulation, it is preferable to ensure that public authorities are guided on how to avoid multiple judicial reviews and the costs thereof, although they might bring his profession some benefit. Local authorities should not have to rely on constant challenges to law that is unclear and not made clearer by guidance, although I accept that it is a difficult area.
	I understand that another Bill will deal with school transport and, therefore, the Minister feels that it would be more appropriate to update the inadequate guidance under that legislation. People will have to cope for a few more months or years with the existing guidelines and more judicial review may be necessary. However, I thought that it appropriate to allow the Minister to set out on the record her views as communicated to me about future guidance and the problems with current interpretations. I am especially pleased that she had the good grace to recognise that the explanatory notes continue the culture of assuming that transport on grounds of religion applied only to those with religion and could never apply to those without religion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10
	 — 
	Groups

Amendment proposed: No. 43, in page 6, line 2, leave out 'particular.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in clause 39, page 26, line 20, at end add—
	'(iii)   all staff transferring to the Commission from the former Commissions shall be deemed to have continuity of service for the purposes of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.'.
	No. 24, in clause 39, page 26, line 20, at end add—
	'(6)   The protection afforded by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981, No. 1794)) shall apply to all staff of the former Commissions whenever they join the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.'.
	No. 16, in schedule 1, page 60, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert—
	'(a)   ensure that no fewer than one half of the Commissioners have personal or direct experience of one or more of the causes of discrimination or prejudice referred to in section 10(2), and
	(b)   have regard to the desirability of their together having experience and knowledge relating to the matters in respect of which the Commission has functions, including, in particular, human rights.'.
	No. 17, in schedule 1, page 60, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	No. 20, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—
	'(d)   at least two Commissioners with experience and knowledge of trade unions and employee relations.'.
	No. 10, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—
	'(3A)   The Secretary of State shall ensure that not less than one quarter of Commissioners appointed under paragraph 1(1) are from a black or other ethnic minority background.'.
	No. 18, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—
	'(3A)   The Secretary of State shall ensure that—
	(a)   not less than one half of Commissioners appointed under paragraph 1(1) are women, and
	(b)   not less than one quarter of Commissioners appointed under paragraph 1(1) are from a black or other ethnic minority background.'.
	No. 25, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—
	'(d)   a Commissioner appointed under paragraph 1(1), with the consent of the London Assembly, who knows about conditions in London.'.
	No. 1, in schedule 1, page 64, line 21, after 'Committee', insert
	'or to the Race Committee'.
	No. 2, in schedule 1, page 64, line 22, after '52', insert 'or paragraph 68'.
	No. 3, in schedule 1, page 64, line 41, after 'Committee', insert
	'or to the Race Committee'.
	No. 4, in schedule 1, page 64, line 41, after '52', insert 'or paragraph 68'.
	No. 5, in schedule 1, page 65, line 24, after 'Committee', insert
	'or to the Race Committee'.
	No. 6, in schedule 1, page 65, line 25, after '52', insert 'or paragraph 68'.
	No. 7, in schedule 1, page 65, line 44, after 'Committee', insert
	'or to the Race Committee'.
	No. 8, in schedule 1, page 65, line 44, after '52', insert- 'or paragraph 68'.
	No. 26, in schedule 1, page 66, line 2, at end insert
	'London Committee 31A   (1)   The Commission shall establish a decision-making committee to be known as the London Committee.
	(2)   The Commission shall ensure that the London Committee is established before any of sections 8 to 12 comes into force (to any extent).
	31B  The Commission shall appoint as the Chairman of the London Committee a Commissioner appointed for the purpose of satisfying paragraph 2(3)(d).
	31C  The Commission shall appoint each member of the London Committee for a period of not less than two years or more than 5 years, subject to the possibilities of—
	(a)   reappointment, and
	(b)   dismissal in accordance with the terms of appointment.
	31D  The London Committee shall advise the Commission about the exercise of the Commission's functions in so far as they affect London.
	31E  Before exercising a function in a manner which in the opinion of the Commission is likely to affect persons in London, the Commission shall consult the London Committee.
	31F   (1)   The power under section 13—
	(a)   shall be treated by virtue of this paragraph as having been delegated by the Commission to the London Committee in so far as its exercise, in the opinion of the Commission, affects London, and
	(b)   to that extent shall not be exercisable by the Commission.
	(2)   Sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply to the power under section 13 in so far as it is treated as delegated to the Disability Committee in accordance with paragraph 52.
	(3)   Sub-paragraph (1) shall not prevent the Commission from making arrangements under section 13(1)(d) or (e) for the provision of advice or guidance to persons anywhere in Great Britain.
	31G  In allocating its resources the Commission shall ensure that the London Committee receives a share sufficient to enable it to exercise its functions.
	31H  The London Committee shall have its offices in London.'.
	No. 42, in schedule 1, page 68, line 4, at end insert—
	'(c)   the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.'.
	No. 9, in schedule 1, page 72, line 16, at end add—
	'PART RACE COMMITTEE Establishment 65   (1)   The Commission shall establish a decision making committee to be known as the Race Committee.
	(2)   The Commission shall ensure that the Race Committee is established before either section 8 or section 10, insofar as they relate to matters of race, comes into force (to any extent).
	Membership 66  The Commission shall ensure that—
	(a)   there are no fewer than seven or more than nine members of the Race Committee,
	(b)   at least one half of the members of the Race Committee are persons from a black or other ethnic minority background, and
	(c)   the Chairperson is a person from a black or other ethnic minority background.
	67  The appointment of each member of the Race Committee shall be for a period of not less than two years or more than five years, subject to the possibilities of—
	(a)   reappointment, and
	(b)   dismissal in accordance with the terms of appointment.
	Functions 68   (1)   The Commission shall by virtue of this paragraph be treated as having delegated to the Race Committee—
	(a)   the Commission's duty under section 8 insofar as it relates to matters of race and may be fulfilled by the exercise of the powers conferred by or referred to in—
	(i)   section 11,
	(ii)   section 13(1)(a), (c) or (d) (or paragraph (e) or (f) insofar as it relates to paragraph (a), (c) or (d)),
	(iii)   section 14,
	(iv)   section 15,
	(v)   section 19, insofar as it relates to matters of race,
	(vi)   section 27,
	(vii)   section 29, or
	(viii)   section 31,
	(b)   the Commission's duty under section 10 insofar as it relates to matters of race and may be fulfilled by the exercise of those powers, and
	(c)   those powers insofar as they are or may be exercised for the purpose of matters concerning race.
	(2)   Delegation under this paragraph shall not prevent the exercise by the Commission of a power, or the fulfilment by the Commission of a duty, by action which relates to any one or more than one of the causes of discrimination or prejudice referred to in section 10.
	(3)   Before exercising a power to which paragraph 21(2) or 22(3) applies the Race Committee shall consult the Scotland Committee.
	(4)   Before exercising a power to which paragraph 29(2) or 30(3) applies the Race Committee shall consult the Wales Committee.
	69  Before exercising a power or fulfilling a duty in relation to matters of race, the Commission shall consult the Race Committee.
	70  The Race Committee shall advise the Commission about the exercise of the Commission's functions insofar as they relate to matters of race.
	Resources 71  In allocating its resources the Commission shall ensure that the Race Committee receives a share sufficient to enable it to exercise its functions.
	Report 72   (1)   The Race Committee shall for each financial year of the Commission submit to the Commission a report on the Committee's activities in that year.
	(2)   The Commission shall incorporate each report of the Race Committee under sub-paragraph (1) into the relevant annual report of the Commission.
	Five Year Review 73  The Commission shall arrange for a review of the activities of the Race Committee to be conducted as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the period of five years beginning with the date of the commencement for all purposes of sections 8 and 10 insofar as they relate to matters of race.
	74  The following may not participate in the review (although those conducting the review may seek views from any of the following)—
	(a)   a Commissioner or former Commissioner,
	(b)   staff or former staff of the Commission,
	(c)   a person who is or has been an Investigating Commissioner, and
	(d)   a person who is or has been a member of a committee established by the Commission.
	75  The Commission shall ensure—
	(a)   that those conducting the review consult persons whom they think likely to have an interest,
	(b)   that those conducting the review submit a report to the Commission, and
	(c)   that the report is published.
	76  The Race Committee may not be dissolved under paragraph 14(c).
	Definition 77  In this Schedule "race" includes colour, nationality, ethnic origin and national origin.'.

Keith Vaz: Thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to support amendments Nos. 1 to 8 and 9. I also speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and I   have great sympathy with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), although I am sure that they will have the opportunity to contribute to the debate themselves.
	I have just come from the Members' Dining Room, where I was attending the bi-annual Eid celebrations. It is an achievement of those who were responsible for timetabling that we should have a debate on race and equality at the same time as most of the leading members of the Muslim community have gathered, along with many other right hon. and hon. Members, in another part of the Palace of Westminster. I know that they also wish to take part in this debate, but they are meeting constituents and listening to the speeches—including by the President of the Liberal Democrats and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that several of my colleagues wish to take part in this debate and I hope that we will see even greater attendance later.
	Race and equality are an essential part of the Government's agenda. In the 19 years that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) have been Members of Parliament, we have seen several debates on race, immigration and the general good relations that exist in our country. When Governments seek to foster those good relations and, indeed, enhance them, they are under a duty to ensure that the institutions and organisations that they create have that purpose. The Commission for Racial Equality has been in existence for all the years that I have been living in the United Kingdom, and I came here when I was nine years of age. The then Government had just abolished, or were just about to abolish, the old Race Relations Board, and its successor was the CRE. So for all the time that I can remember, the black and Asian community has had an institution that was supposed to support and protect it and to speak up for its needs and concerns. In later legislation, even more powers were given to the CRE than the old Race Relations Board had had. Therefore, it is sad that the Government propose to abolish the CRE through this Bill and replace it with an organisation that brings together several other strands of the equality agenda. I want to make it absolutely clear that I support those strands—for want of a better word—having appropriate representation, with a body and organisation that speaks on their behalf, working in like-minded fashion with other organisations to ensure that equality is kept firmly at the top of the Government's political agenda.
	I am disappointed that between the First Reading of the Bill in the last Parliament and the Second Reading and Report of the Bill in this Parliament more time has not been spent consulting the black and Asian community. That is a lost opportunity. The Minister will know that at the weekend, under the banner of the former chair of the CRE, Lord Ouseley, several individuals and organisations signed an open letter to her protesting against proposals to abolish the CRE; they accept that a new body may be necessary but the powers that it will be given do not reflect the aspirations and needs of the black and Asian community. They say that in any new body there should be a proper opportunity for the black and Asian community to be represented, hence the importance of the establishment of a race committee.

Diane Abbott: Two years ago, my hon. Friend and I, and a group of black and Asian Members of this and   the other place, went to see the then Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry and raised with her, in private, the serious concerns of the black community that the new commission would not deal adequately with matters of race. Does he agree that it is regrettable that the issues raised then by Members of both Houses were not taken seriously?

Keith Vaz: It is regrettable, but what my hon. Friend said about that meeting was important. At least, the then Secretary of State was prepared to meet us and listen to our concerns. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, because before the Second Reading of the previous Bill she was prepared to listen to our concerns and to engage fully with the chairman of the CRE, Trevor Phillips—as was the then Lord Chancellor, who is still Lord Chancellor, my noble Friend Lord Falconer. Both those senior members of the Cabinet took on board, to some extent, the concerns we expressed and understood that the proposals would mean a serious change to the way in which black and Asian people could both put their views to Government and be protected.
	Over the last year, sadly, there has been a lack of consultation and communication. I regret the fact that more time was not spent trying to enter appropriate dialogue with the chairman of the CRE and that organisation about the needs of the black and Asian community. I do not agree with everything that Trevor Phillips says: I certainly do not agree with his views on multiculturalism, which is very much alive in places such as Leicester, Wolverhampton and other parts of the country. I am not speaking as a great cheerleader for him, but I respect his integrity and when he tells me openly that there needs to be better consultation with the CRE I take that seriously.
	It is also important that organisations such as the Greater London authority, and the Mayor of London and his special adviser, Lee Jasper, and the 1990 Trust, with Karen Chouhan, Simon Woolley and others, are all involved in the measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is as old as me and has been a Member for as long as me, so she will remind me if there has ever been a time when so many black and Asian groups and organisations came together to protest at what the Government were proposing—

Diane Abbott: rose—

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is now going to tell me that there was another occasion, but my point is important, because Ministers have not listened to the concerns of the community.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that no—not one—reputable black or Asian group supports the commission going ahead without a race committee? It will cause disquiet in our black and Asian communities that the Government have not listened to their united voices.

Keith Vaz: I agree with my hon. Friend. She is right. This is a united voice in favour of the establishment of a race committee; it is also a united voice in favour of proper representation of black and Asian people on the new commission.

Jeremy Hunt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important roles of organisations campaigning against discrimination is to focus the spotlight of the media on abuses where they exist? One of the dangers of the new legislation, which all hon. Members hope that the Government will be alive to, is that a single, larger organisation will not have the figureheads that we have in the person of Trevor Phillips at the CRE, or Bert Massey at the Disability Rights Commission, who are effective at getting the media to look at abuses, because of their position and their personal experience of discrimination, which makes them a powerful voice in the media.

Keith Vaz: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we have such focus. I am not saying that I do not agree with a body that involves everybody else and every other strand of equality—it is good that they should be able to share the experience of discrimination—but there is a need for the focus that he describes, which is missing.
	We are at a time in the politics and history of our country when all the political parties talk about the need for better representation. When I first came to the House, I was the first person of Asian origin for more than 50 years. I was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, the   late Bernie Grant and Paul Boateng, who is now the high commissioner in South Africa. Since then, other black and Asian Members have been elected. I am sitting next to a very talented one—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler).
	As far as I can remember, Labour party leaders have always talked about the need for more representation in Parliament. Conservative leaders have done the same thing. I heard a passionate speech by the last leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who talked about the need to get more representation for women and the ethnic minority population of this country.
	I am pleased that the Opposition now have the hon. Members for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), both of whom come as elected Members representing the whole of their constituencies, but with the added dimension of being from the ethnic minority community.
	The first thing that we notice about the Front-Bench spokespersons is that they are women. That is the most distinguishable thing that we notice about the difference between, for example, the Minister for Women and Equality and her colleague sitting next to her. That is the most important thing that we notice. There are other issues, but gender is a defining issue, which is why race and gender are so important.
	I pay tribute to the disability lobby—my hon. Friends sitting around me—for the work that it has done and to the gay and lesbian lobby for what it has done in ensuring that it gets to first base. There is no point just talking about representation. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats had one person of Asian origin in Leicester, South, but he is no longer with us in Parliament, so it is, in a sense, not truly representative. I will not go into the other parties, because they are slightly smaller and may think that I am being unfair.
	We all talk about representation. When I first came to the House that was not a fashionable subject, but now, when the new leader of the Conservative party makes a speech, he talks about more women and more black and Asian people, as do all political leaders—not just in this country, but in other countries throughout Europe.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he has just paid me a compliment—I am never sure—I thank him for that as well.
	The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent argument about why debate on equality has to address all strands of equality, in every way that we can imagine, but he is arguing against his apparent argument on the Order Paper for pre-eminence for race, religion and belief.

Keith Vaz: My remark was meant as a compliment; I am always happy to pay the hon. Lady compliments. However, I do not pay her another compliment as I do not think that she has read my amendments. They do not make race pre-eminent. In terms of representation, we will have a disability commissioner, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and I, along with other Members, are asking for the Bill to make it clear that a certain number of people of black and Asian origin will be on the commission. At the moment, we do not have any and there is no guarantee that any of the 10 to 15 commissioners will be either women or black or Asian. When the Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box, we will look for a cast-iron guarantee and commitment that those groups will be represented. Only the disability lobby, which has played a very canny game, is guaranteed a commissioner.
	The hon. Lady has me on the equality argument. The black and Asian community are not against the creation of a new body provided that there is, as her colleagues have said, sufficient time, attention and focus on these issues. If we are creating an organisation—some would say a tower of Babel—with so many strands sitting round the table that are, of course, united by the common agenda of equality, there must be adequate representation.

Dawn Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the CEHR is set up without any black or women commissioners, it will have no credibility at all when it comes to being able to represent race or sex issues effectively?

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The commission will have no credibility at all. Not even warm words will be sufficient for the communities outside. We want hot words from the Minister and a commitment from her that the issue of representation is first and foremost in the Government's agenda. As she is the Minister responsible for equality, I suspect that it will be quite easy for her to do that.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes his case as eloquently as he always does, but the premise of his argument appears to be that he wants to continue the excellent work that has been started by the Commission for Racial Equality. Will he comment on the fact that parliamentary answers that I have received show that, in the past 10 years, something like 20 claims of racial discrimination have been made against the CRE? Taxpayers' money has been used to settle some of those cases out of court, so perhaps the CRE does not have such a good record on these matters as he would have us believe.

Keith Vaz: If an organisation is not working or if it can be improved, let us improve it. I have my own story about the CRE. When I first came to Britain, my mother went to the CRE to ask for help in a discrimination case that she had. She was then, I think, the only person of Asian origin teaching in the London borough of Richmond and we could not understand why she could never obtain promotion. We went to the CRE—I think I was about 11—and asked it for help. Although it did not help my mother, it did not put me off the concept of the need for an organisation that provides help.
	A lot of other organisations have claims of racial discrimination made against them, and I concede the point that we need a new organisation provided that it makes for better representation. The representation point is of paramount consideration for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrat party, which is always banging on about representation. I have just heard a speech from the president of the Liberal Democrats, and I name him even though I have not given him notice that I would. I have just rushed away from the speech to take part in the debate, but his speech was all about representation. With Muslim people sitting in front of him, he called for more Muslim Members of Parliament from the Liberal Democrat party. Such words are cheap if one goes on to a platform to say that we want more and then one takes away the very mechanism by which we get more.

Tim Boswell: I have a lot of sympathy with the motivation behind the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. I have been reading a biography of the pre-war life of Lord Halifax, alias Lord Irwin, viceroy of India. It was interesting that the British Government's commission on India contained no national of that country—it was an entirely Caucasian show. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whether or not this is a matter of formal representation, if there is no membership from minority communities, it is extremely unlikely that those communities will readily identify with the body and its actions?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am not familiar with the life of Lord Halifax, but he makes the good point that representation is crucial. When the Minister responds to this first point, I ask her to be absolutely unequivocal. She should not use the words "I hope", "I wish", or "there should" because we have heard them before. We are looking for the words "there must be" if we are not to press the matter to a Division.

John Bercow: On a point of clarification, does the hon. Gentleman think that the case for guaranteed representation that he is making about the ethnic minorities is as strong as, or stronger than, a similar such case that could be made on behalf of another minority? Is it of equal value, or—I think that this is a perfectly reasonable inquiry and I do not ask it tendentiously—is he arguing his case especially strongly because the CRE originally had genuine concerns about the danger of powerlessness as a result of the creation of the new body?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman has an excellent record on these issues. Even though he represents a constituency such as Buckingham, which must have a   small percentage of black and Asian people—it is certainly smaller than the 49 per cent. figure for my constituency—he still speaks passionately about such matters, for which I respect him. I think that it is a bit of both. People need to identify readily with the commissioners who will speak on their behalf. It might well be that all the commissioners decide at the first meeting that they have a common agenda that they need to take forward, but we need specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has tabled an amendment to provide for parity for women, which I fully support. Half the commission should consist of women because they make up just over half the population of this country. If we want to go for crude figures and base representation in some way on numbers, we should look at the population of the black and Asian community—it now makes up about 5 million of the 60 million people in this country—and ensure that it is properly represented.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me such a candid and straightforward answer. Further to that answer, would he on the same basis argue that because the gay population is by general consent thought to be approximately 10 per cent. of the adult population, it would logically follow that if the   body were to consist of 10 people, there should be one guaranteed place for the gay community, irrespective of whether Stonewall is arguing for such a position? I am not aware off the top of my head that it is arguing for that, but it is an interesting point to establish.

Keith Vaz: It is an interesting point and I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There should be at least one such guaranteed place. The whole thing about the commission is that a person could be gay, black and disabled, so several different groups could be covered. If we are serious about the equality agenda, we should consider these issues and ensure that people are guaranteed a place on the commission. Of course the gay community must be guaranteed a place, but that is not what is happening at the moment.

Diane Abbott: On the question of representation, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to nail the allegation that has been made that those of us who argue for black representation are in some way arguing for a hierarchy of discrimination? We are not putting forward such an argument, but simply saying, from our personal experience, that all types of discrimination are distinct, both in their manifestation and because of the solutions to the problems that they pose. Unless there is a proper balance of commissioners who have personal experience of discrimination, the commission will lack credibility and might not engage with different types of discrimination with the precision required.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she takes me on to my next topic, policy and decision making, which are central to the purpose of the race committee.

Bob Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman not selling his case rather short by calling only for pro rata representation on the commission? Given that many incidences of discrimination are suffered by the black and Asian community, should not there be greater than pro rata representation for that community? Would not that be more acceptable to that   community and make the commission work better?

Keith Vaz: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am happy to start with pro rata representation given that at the moment we have nothing. There are no guarantees on the face of the Bill, so the new body could consist of 10 white men, plus the disability commissioner, who could be a woman. For now, pro rata representation is fine by me.

Rob Marris: I am listening with interest because I am torn on this issue. There must be representation across the board of the various groups who suffer different forms of discrimination, and there are overlapping areas of discrimination, but I caution my hon. Friend. He has on several occasions referred to black and Asian residents of the United Kingdom, whereas amendment No. 9, which is the linchpin of the group even though it comes at the end, refers to "black or other ethnic" minorities. There is a difference, and I urge him to recognise that difference. There is a significant Ukrainian community in my constituency, for example, and we have a significant Polish community. The discrimination that they face may take a different form from the discrimination faced by members of visible racial or ethnic minorities, but we have to be cognisant of that nuance.

Keith Vaz: We are cognisant of it. However, my hon. Friend talks about the Polish community, which is white. Although its members may face discrimination, it is not the racial discrimination that I am describing. I agree that everyone should watch their language and he is right to point out that there are different ways to define these matters.

Philip Davies: Is not the flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument in favour of having certain quotas of people on the commission most evident in relation to disability? In appointing one person with a disability, how on earth is one to define what type of disability that person should have, given that there are so many different types of disability? Should one appoint a person who uses a wheelchair when wheelchair users make up only 5 per cent. of people with a disability? It is nonsensical to suppose that one could ever get a cross-section of people with all sorts of disabilities. I believe that there have even been moves to define left-handedness as a disability under the Bill. The fact that someone does not have a particular disability does not mean that they cannot empathise with people who do have that disability.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right to this extent: a person can empathise even if he or she does not have a particular disability. However, I can assure him that people who have a disability know that they have a disability. I remember that when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I were trying to set up black sections in the 1980s, the then leader of the Labour party, who is now a Member of the House of Lords, asked us to define "black." We replied, "People know instinctively whether they are black—they just have to look in the mirror."

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend takes us back in time. When he said that the commissioners could be 10 white men, the Minister shook her head fiercely. However, the working party that considered the establishment of the commission comprised 28 people of whom only three were from visible minorities. Does he agree that that feeds the concern felt by the black and Asian community that we will find ourselves hopelessly marginalised in the new commission?

Keith Vaz: That is an important point, which must be pursued. The way in which the consultation process has taken place is regrettable. It has taken place at the time when, following the events of 7 July, the Government have been eager to engage with sections of the Asian community by setting up commissions and working parties. As I said earlier, words are okay and statements and speeches can be magnificent—we have made some fantastic statements on diversity—but in the end what counts is our ability to change legislation for the purposes of progress.

David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that much of the argument against what he is putting forward was put far more strongly 40 years ago when it was argued that there are other forms of discrimination, which undoubtedly existed and which remain, and therefore there was no reason why preference should be given to black and Asians? We have made considerable progress—I do not underestimate that progress when I look at those who occupy the Government Benches and those elsewhere in the country—but the form of discrimination against those who happen not to have a white skin remains. Hence there is undoubtedly an argument—less so now, but the argument of 40 years ago remains—for there to be a committee within the new body that is proposed along the lines that my hon. Friend is proposing. I will be delighted, as I am sure that he will be, when that is no longer necessary.

Keith Vaz: Absolutely. I am so glad that my hon. Friend has taken me on to my second point, which I have been trying to make. I have only two points to make to the House.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz: I will give way only because it is the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow: I am genuinely glad that I have been in my place to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am not making a frivolous point. I am trying to underline the rather serious point that he is making by saying that he should not be led astray, in however well-meaning a fashion, by the intervention and the challenge of definition from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). May I illustratively point out to the hon. Gentleman an observation that the House has been favoured with in the past by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), on the subject of definition? Clement Attlee was once asked to define an elephant, to which he replied that on the whole it was quite difficult to do so but equally, on the whole, when someone had seen one, they knew that they had seen it.

Keith Vaz: We have had Clement Attlee and Lord Halifax, so goodness knows who we are going to hear from next. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that quote, and I shall use it in my next speech.
	The issue of policy and decision making will be important. The proposed body will be charged with making policy. The point of having a race committee is that black and Asian people, it is to be hoped, will be able to decide on policy that affects black and Asian people. There will be a voice for them and somewhere for them to go. This is not happening at present.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Minister—this is not meant personally to her because she has been a Minister for only the past year—to quote Mario Puzo, that to criticise people is not the business of politics. It is not personal. I think that we have failed in terms of the equality agenda after eight years. I expected more from our Government than we have given. We need to do more. We need more than good speeches about more black people here and more Asian people there. We need to have good laws, which I hope that we shall introduce as part of the measure that is before us. In addition, we must have bodies that will be able to allow the communities to be able to represent themselves. I am sorry that that is not happening. That is lamentable.
	Only this morning, there was an article in The Times about the number of police officers who are not only joining the police service, but leaving it. The police service had 4,629 ethnic minority police officers in 2004. That was an 18 per cent. increase on the previous year. Hooray. That is a fantastic record. However, 17.8 per cent. of black and Asian recruits in 2004 resigned or were dismissed within six months of starting their jobs, compared with 7.7 per cent. of white officers.
	Last year, 12.6 per cent. of ethnic minority recruits dropped out of the service within six months compared with 7.6 per cent. of white officers, and the figures continue. In that public service—one that is constantly monitored—to see that sort of reaction and to hear stories of racism against police officers makes me wonder what we have been doing over the past generation. We certainly should have done much more. These are lamentable figures for any Government. For me, someone who is passionately committed to the Labour Government—when I told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) that I was tabling the amendment, he said, "Why are you doing so? You are part of the payroll vote even though you are not on the payroll"—that worries me intensely. I do not mean that as a slight to the Minister because she is not yet on the payroll vote, even though she will be voting for the Bill's passage through the House.
	I think that we have let people down. We have lost the plot on equality. We have only reacted since 7 July last year, because we discovered that some people who are trying to destroy the good race relations that we enjoy in this country do not come from Lebanon, have not been trained in Syria, and do not have Iranian connections. They were born and bred in Leeds. That is the challenge for us—which body will take up that mantle and try to deal with that fundamental issue? Will it be the new commission for integration and citizenship? Will it be part of the Phillips review? Will it be the Commission for Racial Equality, or what has been left of it in the past 18 months? Will it be Lee Jasper and the Greater London assembly? Will it be Simon Woolley and the 1990 Trust, or Operation Black Vote? Who will accept that mantle? The hon. Member for Daventry talked about Lord Halifax dividing and ruling, but if we divide the community in that way and do not give its members a focus it is a recipe for disaster.

Michael Wills: I have been listening very carefully to the case that my hon. Friend is making. While I understand the Government's approach—and I certainly think that our record on equality is rather better than he suggested—I was struck by what appears to be consensus among all black and Asian organisations on the amendment. It is important that the Government always listen, and I hope that they will reconsider their attitude to the amendment in the light of our discussions. I should be grateful, however, if my hon. Friend would spell out in a little more detail the consequences if the amendment fails.

Keith Vaz: Before I respond, may I commend my hon. Friend on his work on Britishness? I read his excellent newspaper article about the concept of Britishness, and it reminds me of a point that I intended to make. Nothing that we say takes away from the fact that a black or Asian person who was born in this country, or who, like me, has emigrated here, has a passion for being British. Nor does it take away from our support for the flag or our commitment to the things that are British. A definition of Britishness, besides including a cup of tea, as an article in The Sun said, should include chicken tikka masala and the music on "Top of the Pops", which is very much dominated by black British musicians. We do not wish to take away from that, and I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—incidentally, I congratulate him on his good news today—on their work on Britishness.
	As for my hon. Friend's question, if the amendment fails, members of the black and Asian community will think that the Government have let them down at a time when they need their support. If I were marking them, I would say that they have scored "average" on equality. I expect them to achieve "excellent", and we have four years before the next election to make sure that they do so. May I tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whom I have known for a number of years, and who believes in what she is doing, that she may choose to take the common-denominator approach, but she should recognise the needs and desires of the communities? I urge her to speak with passion at the Dispatch Box and to give us the guarantees that we want. I do not want to ask the Deputy Speaker to take the amendment separately so that we can vote on it, as I would have to vote against my own Government, bearing in mind my comments about the non-existence of the payroll vote. However, that needs more than words about wishing and hoping.

Jeremy Hunt: rose—

Keith Vaz: I shall give way for the final time to the hon. Gentleman.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for generously accepting my interventions. He has spoken extremely eloquently. If he is not successful in persuading the Government to accept his amendment, does he agree that they should consider including in schedule 1, part of which deals with the appointment of commissioners, provisions to cover the recruitment of a commissioner who is specifically appointed to deal with race relations, of a commissioner specifically appointed to deal with disability rights and of commissioners to deal with other key areas, so at least someone can focus directly on those issues and thus make sure that there is a figurehead for those important campaigns.

Keith Vaz: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I accept that he is sincere. The fact is, however, we need proper representation in the Bill. The issue of portfolios is applicable now. The CRE has a number of commissioners, some of whom deal specifically with, for example, the Muslim community. The portfolio issue is a secondary consideration, but the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to paragraph 2 of schedule 1, because the issue of representation is the key point.
	The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that I have spoken eloquently, but I think that I have spoken for too long. [Hon. Members: "No."] I want to allow my hon. Friends the opportunity to speak. We rarely debate equality in this House, because the Opposition never want to debate it in their time. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) disagrees, but when was the last time that she used one of her Opposition days to discuss equality? The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has told us all about his commitment to equality, but I cannot remember when the Liberal Democrats last provided time to debate it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) has just returned from Eid celebrations to attend this debate, which must have been a difficult choice.
	This is an opportunity to send a powerful message to the black and Asian community, and I hope that the Minister takes it and does not leave me and my hon. Friends in the position of having to call a Division against our own Government.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has made an important and eloquent speech. He mentioned that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) has attended Eid celebrations, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is usually here on the Front Bench, is doing. We cannot all attend Eid celebrations, which are important, but I am sure that all hon. Members support them.
	I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Leicester, East. When I challenged him on one point, he answered another point, but I still disagree with him on the first point, which amendment No. 43 addresses. Given that we are discussing equality, it is strange that the Bill gives pre-eminence to matters concerning race, religion or belief. We discussed that point at length in Committee, where I argued that it is illogical to include the word "particular" in clause 10(4), because it is not right that particular attention should be paid to one of the strands of equality. However, I will not press that point, because other issues are far more important and I do not feel strongly about it. When we made that point in Committee, the Minister gave a reasonable explanation why the word "particular" should remain. I accepted her argument then and, being consistent, I am sure that she will advance it again today, in which case I shall probably accept it once more.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, East has made some important points. In Committee, I moved amendment No. 52, which suggested that the commission should consist of:
	"(d) at least one female Commissioner,
	(e) at least one Commissioner who represents an ethnic minority,
	(f) at least one Commissioner who at the time of appointment is aged over 65 years, and
	(g) at least one Commissioner who is either gay, lesbian or transgender.'."
	To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East.
	In Committee, my concern, which I still harbour, was that we should be prescriptive on Report, because law is better if it is not vague, but precise. My amendment in Committee, which is similar to the general points made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East this afternoon, would have allowed Parliament to prescribe some of the qualifications for some of the commissioners. It is important that at least one commissioner is female and that at least one commissioner can discuss issues around age from their own experience. I am not sure whether all hon. Members agree that "aged over 65 years" is a qualification, and if others think that it should be 70, 75 or even older, I would not argue, because the point is sensitive.
	In principle, it is important that the commission has members who know about discrimination from their own experience rather than from a second-hand, academic or professional understanding. A reasonable proportion of the commissioners should have an understanding based on their own experience, which is different from an understanding derived from academic study or professional experience. I therefore agree with the general principles behind what the hon. Member for Leicester, East has said this afternoon.

Keith Vaz: I therefore assume that the hon. Lady will support the amendment.

Eleanor Laing: My amendment was slightly different from the hon. Gentleman's amendment. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has suggested that his amendment is better, which is his prerogative. If I had wanted to press the matter to a vote, however, I would have tabled a different amendment. I do not support the letter of his amendment, but I support what he has said in principle. However, I suspect that the Minister will advance a legal argument to try to persuade the House that a provision in schedule 1 already covers all those points. Nevertheless, it is important that we have it on record that this House feels strongly that the commission should be composed of people who understand the issues of discrimination against which we are legislating from their own personal experience.
	It is also important to recognise that this is a cross-party matter. I suspect that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) agrees with me in principle as she did in Committee, although she may argue about the exact dots and commas. When such matters are considered in the wider sphere, it is important that Parliament is seen to be concerned that the commission is made up of people who have relevant personal experience.

Keith Vaz: I am surprised by the hon. Lady, because I should have thought that under the new leadership of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) she would want to appeal to the black and Asian community in the United Kingdom by saying that it has a voice in the Conservative party, which says that it must have equal representation. Why is she struggling with the issue, which should be an easy win for the Conservatives?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken—I am not struggling at all. My speech in Committee was made prior to the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney as leader of the Conservative party. My principles are those in which I have always believed and continue consistently to believe. It is delightful that the new leader of my party agrees with me on these matters, as he honestly does. I am pleased that he is directing my party in the right direction in this respect. I might struggle with the exact words that the hon. Member for Leicester, East has used in his amendment—I am not giving him any assurances in that regard—but I am not struggling with the principle. Conservative Members agree with what he said, and he deserves to be complimented on saying it in such a heartfelt way.

John Bercow: I know that my hon. Friend performed with great skill and dexterity in the Standing Committee on the Bill. However, as I was not fortunate enough to be chosen as a member of the Committee, I am familiar only with some, not all, of the exchanges that took place there. I understand her argument that the terms and wording of her amendment differ from those of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, but if there is something wrong with his amendment, what is it?

Eleanor Laing: As usual, my hon. Friend asks a very precise question. In principle, there is nothing wrong with the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I am not willing to commit my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to supporting exactly what he has said word for word. I know that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me as well. I confess that I am a cautious lawyer by training, so I do not rush into precise and binding promises on every dot and comma of a particular amendment unless I am 100 per cent. sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish to be led down precisely that path.

Keith Vaz: I like the hon. Lady, but I do not forgive her, because this moment represents a genuine opportunity for the Conservative party to show some fresh thinking on the equality debate. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is sitting next to her, will have just come back from the Eid celebration, having made his usual marvellous and eloquent speeches in support of this country's ethnic minority communities. If the hon. Lady agrees with the principle of what I have said, here is her chance—her moment in history—to strike a blow for those communities. Why does not she seize it with both hands?

Eleanor Laing: I am tempted by the hon. Gentleman's flattery, but I simply repeat that in principle we support what he said—he advanced some good arguments. It is quite something for agreement on principle to be reached between Conservative and Labour Members. He should quit while he is ahead, or I will find something specific to disagree with.

Tim Boswell: It might assist my hon. Friend if I were to tell her my view, without anticipating any speech that I may shortly be called to make. Is it not absolutely crucial that we have a robust and entirely convincing response from the Minister, because some of us will be listening to the debate and deciding what to do in the light of that?

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend is, as ever, extremely wise and experienced in these matters. He is entirely right and anticipates what I am about to say. Although, as I said, I have every respect for the hon. Member for Leicester, East—I must stop paying him compliments or it will be bad for his political image—it is not what he says, but how the Minister responds, that determines how we go forward. The Minister's response will probably be a carefully thought out legal argument. As such, I may well be convinced by it. However, I have already confessed to being a cautious lawyer, and I will continue to proceed with caution. Perhaps that backs up my earlier remarks about the importance of people who sit on the commission drawing their conclusions not from their cold professional understanding but from their own personal experience.

Rob Marris: I, too, am a lawyer, although perhaps not as cautious as the hon. Lady. I see no Conservative amendment relating to the disability committee, which is covered in part 5 of schedule 1. The wording in that part of the schedule is on all fours with amendment No. 9, except that one would have to take out the word, "disability", and insert the word, "race". As the hon. Lady has not tabled an amendment to part 5 of schedule 1, I presume that she accepts the disability committee, so why is she being so cautious about the wording—and perhaps even the concept, although I am not so sure about that—of the amendment?

Eleanor Laing: I have been examining the principles that we are debating. Unfortunately, in my position, I do not have the power to do any of the things that the hon. Gentleman would like to be done. When I am sitting on the Government Benches—I think that it will be in the not-too-distant future—I hope that I might have the privilege of dealing with these matters from the Dispatch Box. If the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Leicester, East were to ask me such questions then, I hope that I would be able to reply positively.

Rob Marris: rose—

Eleanor Laing: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman continuing to ask me questions, because I am not the Minister.
	I want to move on, because we have taken up a lot of time on this and there are many equally important matters still to be debated. Amendment No. 42, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relates to the way in which the new commission will be held accountable for the spending of taxpayers' money. I brought that up many times on Second Reading and in Committee. The Minister and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) are smiling because they have heard me make this argument so often, but I make no apology for repeating it.
	The cost of the new commission and the work that it undertakes will be very much greater than the cost of the three bodies that it replaces. I am very worried about that. Of course, I accept that as we are widening the scope of the work done by the existing three bodies, excellent as they are, the new operation will cost more than the current one. That is correct. However, there is a difference between more and an enormous amount more—indeed, multiplied several times over. The Minister has given me many answers on that point in our previous deliberations but none has satisfied me.

Meg Munn: I am puzzled by the hon. Lady's view. She says that the figure has been multiplied many times. The budget for the new commission is £70 million whereas that for the existing commissions is £48 million. By anyone's calculation, the figure is not multiplied many times.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister is right. The new commission will cost twice as much. We had that argument previously. [Interruption.] I know that 48 times two does not equal 70, but if any hon. Member can give me an example of a Labour Government's projection and the relevant figures at the end of the year for which it was done coming in below that same projection, I shall withdraw my comments. If the Government estimate £70 million, the commission will cost more than that.
	The current £48 million is probably money well spent and I do not therefore argue for a cut in spending on such an important matter. My hon. Friends and I always argue for spending the smallest possible amount of taxpayers' money, yet if the Government plan to put three bodies under one administrative roof, there must be economies of scale and the current budget of £48 million should be reduced. Nevertheless, given that the new commission can rightly cover six strands of work instead of three, that budget will clearly increase. However, if one decreases and then increases a budget, one should not predict spending twice the amount of taxpayers' money.

Rob Marris: We are considering a new body that will cover six strands, but the difference between 48 and 70 is less than 50 per cent. A 50 per cent. increase would be 72. I understand the hon. Lady's position but, if she believes that £70 million is too much, how much would the Conservative party be prepared to pay to tackle discrimination?

Eleanor Laing: At present, discrimination is tackled by £48 million a year and it is well done. I pay tribute to the three bodies that currently carry out the excellent work. They have worked hard to inform hon. Members about the issues that we are debating and they should be congratulated on their hard work on our proceedings, as should the bodies that represent the other strands of inequality that will come under the new commission for equality and human rights.
	The current work represents taxpayers' money well spent, but I am worried. I wager that, when we examine the new body's accounts at the end of its first financial year, it will have cost more than the £70 million predicted by the Minister. I fear that the new body will cost more than twice as much as the current bodies. That is worrying because every pound spent on the commission is a pound of taxpayers' money not spent on health, education or some other matter.
	It is our duty, as a House of Commons, to be the guardian of taxpayers' money. Whatever we want to do and however good the intentions of the legislation that we wish to pass—I have said time and again that the Bill's intention is good and we thoroughly support it—if it costs too much, is over-bureaucratic and puts too many burdens on business, thus costing more indirectly to the economy, it will undo some of its good work. It falls to me as Opposition spokesman to make this point because the Government will never make it: Labour Governments always spend more taxpayers' money than they intend because they do not have the regard that they should for the economy.

Dawn Butler: Equal pay, with men and women paid equally, would improve the economy. Do not the new compassionate Conservatives believe that equality and eliminating discrimination are worth it?

Eleanor Laing: Of course I did not say that—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members of the amendment under discussion? They should confine their remarks to the amendments.

Eleanor Laing: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not need to answer the hon. Lady's question because I have said at least six or seven times in the past half hour how worthy I consider the Bill to be and stressed the importance of the work of the new commission for equality and human rights. The hon. Lady's question was therefore unnecessary and I should not have given way to her.
	The new body should be accountable for its spending. Without amendment No. 42, the commission would be required to
	"send a copy of a statement under sub-paragraph (1)(b)"—
	a statement of its accounts for the year—
	"to . . . the Secretary of State, and . . . the Comptroller and Auditor General."
	Amendment No. 42 would require the commission to send a copy to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It is essential that hon. Members should be able to examine the accounts of the new body and hold it to account for every pound of taxpayers' money that it spends.
	It would be wrong if my concern for fiscal prudence were misinterpreted as opposition to the Bill. I reiterate my total support for the principle of the measure. The official Opposition support the Bill's intention. However, in doing that, it is our duty to be the guardians of taxpayers' money and amendment No. 42 therefore proposes that, every year, we should be able to examine every pound that the commission spends. Of course, I have confidence that every pound will be well spent.

John McDonnell: I want to speak about the amendments that I tabled, but I begin my associating myself with those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).
	As the Library research paper emphasised, when the Bill was first introduced, it and the intentions behind it gained a breadth of support that we had not witnessed for several years. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty said:
	"This Bill is a beacon of hope for many of us and I hope that the Government will put real political will behind it."
	Other supporters include the Muslim Council of Britain, Ben Summerskill—the chief executive of Stonewall—the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. It would be regrettable to waste all that good will on the issue of representation among the commissioners. I hope that the Minister will make a strong statement that the issues raised in the debate will be tackled properly and that we shall hear a firm and concrete commitment from the Government that the new body will be adequately representative.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East talked about the definition of black and ethnic minorities. I am the chair of the all-party group on the Irish community in Britain, and I should like to point out that, among all the other definitions of ethnic minorities, we need to recognise that the largest ethnic minority in this country are the Irish, who have suffered discrimination at the hands of the various institutions of this country over the generations.
	I have tabled amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 20. If we are to set up a new organisation from the merger of existing organisations, it is important that we help to maintain the morale of the staff of those organisations who transfer to the new one, particularly those who have built up expertise in these fields as a result of working for the existing organisations over the years. A number of members of staff have expressed their concern to the all-party trade union group representing the Public and Commercial Services Union, of which I am the chair. They are worried about continuity of service and the application of TUPE—the Transfer ofUndertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
	Amendment No. 23 addresses the issue of continuity of service by ensuring that all the staff from the former commissions transferring across to the new commission will be deemed to have continuity of service for the purposes of the civil service compensation scheme. This means that if, for example, a member of staff were to be compensated for redundancy, their service on the existing organisation would be taken into account.
	Many hon. Members will think that that would naturally be the case, but I have raised the issue because of the recent experience of staff at the Learning and Skills Council, which is implementing massive redundancies. Many of its staff had previously transferred from the training and enterprise councils, and they thought that that service would be regarded as part of the continuity of their employment. However, many of the staff who are facing redundancy have had their entitlement calculated only from the creation of the LSC. Their service with the TECs has not been taken into account, and their supposed continuity of service has not been recognised. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could place on the record the assurance that, for the purpose of the civil service compensation scheme, all the staff transferring from the three existing commissions will be regarded as having continuity of service.

Tim Boswell: I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about the Learning and Skills Council. Does he agree that there is already an exemplary code of practice for the handling of transfers and redundancies in the public sector? Should it not, therefore, be a matter of general principle that that should apply to all such cases, rather than a particular one being exempt?

John McDonnell: It is true that there is a code of practice—it is helpful and it should be applied generally. It would be reassuring, however, if the Minister could put on the record that these particular members of staff will be protected. I say that because of the experience at the LSC, which undermined the morale of the large numbers of people who had transferred across from the TECs and who thought that they had some security.
	Amendment No. 24 also deals with staffing. It would ensure that the TUPE regulations apply to all staff of the former commissions, whenever they transfer to the new commission. Again, I seek a statement on the record from the Minister to reassure the staff who are now being identified for transfer. The transfer from the existing commissions will be a staggered process. Most of the staff at the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission will transfer to the new body in 2007. However, staff at the Commission for Racial Equality will not transfer until 2009. As this is a piecemeal process, rather than a wholesale transfer of staff, it is important that we have an assurance that the TUPE regulations will apply to all transfers, whenever they occur.
	Furthermore, some members of staff are anxious that the TUPE regulations do not cover all matters and that they will not be fully protected.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. Does he agree that for the new commission to be effective in its roles and responsibilities, it is important that there is continuity of staffing so that the knowledge and experience gained by the staff of the existing bodies is properly transferred to the new commission? The doubts that the hon. Gentleman is raising about TUPE and continuity of service might encourage existing staff to look for other opportunities, rather than transferring across.

John McDonnell: I have no doubt that the staff who serve the existing commissions will seek to serve the new one with the same commitment and dedication that have made the existing ones so successful. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, however. We need to reassure those members of staff who are transferring across that they are secure in their employment, and that they will have the opportunity to continue what for many of them is a vocation, as a result of the dedication that they have demonstrated over the years. The last thing that we should be doing is undermining their morale or their commitment to their work. I would therefore welcome an assurance on the record from the Minister that TUPE will apply at each stage of the transfers from the different bodies, no matter when they occur.
	I mentioned that the TUPE regulations were not effective in guaranteeing full protection in regard to a whole range of issues. They allow flexibility for the employer, but they do not apply to fundamental issues such as pensions. I hope that the guidance that has been issued for past civil service transfers to new organisations—and even to organisations outside the public sector—on issues such as the protection of pensions and ensuring that alternative proposals are put to staff in full consultation to give them that protection, will apply in this instance as well, so that we can offer security to those members of staff.
	Amendment No. 20 is about representation. The three existing commissions have secured representation from both sides of industry, including the trade union movement. There have been trade union nominations—usually two per board—to each of the existing organisations. The reason for that is that the bulk of the casework of those organisations has arisen as a result of discrimination in employment. It was therefore natural to ask the organisations with experience in employment relations—both employers and trade unions—to nominate people to sit on the commissions' boards. It is interesting that the nominations from the trade unions have largely involved women and representatives of the black and ethnic minority groups.
	I am worried that there is no commitment in the Bill to seek trade union representation on the new body, and I ask the Minister to assure us—in any form of words that she can give us this evening—that at least some direction will be given to the new body to consult and involve the trade unions and, if possible, seek nominations from them, and not just for commissioners. An alternative might be to ensure that there is adequate trade union representation on the advisory bodies that will be established to advise the commission on individual inquiries and on the overall direction of policy. In that way, we would achieve a representative body that would be effective in building on existing experience, which has largely been focused on issues relating to employment rights.
	We welcome the Bill, but it is on these points of detail that the new body will fail or succeed. I hope that the Minister will respond flexibly so that we can genuinely take into account the issues raised in this debate. In that way, we would demonstrate that the House of Commons has a value, even at this late stage of the Bill, in ensuring that the legislation will be effective.

Sandra Gidley: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I have not changed my view on these issues since Second Reading, although I have become far more aware of the strength of feeling on them in the black and ethnic minority community. I want slightly to hold the hon. Gentleman to account for his accusation that we do not take equality issues seriously. I think that it was Lord Lester, in another place, who made a serious attempt to introduce a single equalities Act, and I believe that we had a debate on equal opportunities in 2000.

Keith Vaz: My point was that there is a lot of common ground on the equalities agenda, but the race agenda that is part of that is not just about words, but about actions and deeds.

Sandra Gidley: I have no quarrel with that argument and I am sympathetic to the intent of the amendments.
	In some respects, the key question that needs to be considered is whether one has to have experienced an issue in order to be able first, to understand it, and secondly, to deal with it. I am not sure that I have the answers, but to return to an issue outside the equality agenda, one of the most emotional and sometimes traumatic experiences through which a woman can go is giving birth. A lot of evidence shows that having an understanding midwife will make a big difference to that experience. The key question is whether the midwife has to have given birth in order to understand the experience fully. That might seem an odd parallel, but some would argue that experiencing birth oneself is very important, while others would say that training, empathy and so on can overcome such problems.
	I have some problems with the argument about whether the amendment limits the recruitment pool. I always feel highly offended, as a woman, at accusations that all-women shortlists will somehow end up with an inferior candidate. Let me knock that issue on the head. The argument has been raised with me, however, and I feel that I ought to mention it.
	The Bill already provides for commissioners to have experience or knowledge relating to a relevant matter, across the strands, and to human rights. The question that I ask myself is whether that is enough. After listening to the hon. Member for Leicester, East, it is clear that there will be wider implications if we do not take seriously the discontent in the black and ethnic minority communities. I would react with absolute horror to a commission that was made up of 10 white men, but I do not think that that will happen. I wonder whether for once we should trust those concerned to get on with it rather than prescribing it in the Bill. I do not know the answer.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, East also lauded the Commission for Racial Equality, saying that it was the one place where black and ethnic minority communities could go if they had a problem. Is that really the case? Although the issue was mentioned when I had briefings with the CRE, it did not seem the most important thing on the agenda of those to whom I spoke. It was only after the Bill's Second Reading that other representative bodies of black and ethnic minority communities came forward and it became obvious that there was a huge amount of discontent. Why did the CRE not make that feeling known at the very beginning? Would a single equalities commission, with a range of people with experience of different discriminations, and with a strong responsibility to consult, be a better way forward?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Lady mentioned that she wishes to trust the new body on the issue of representation, but why should we? We are parliamentarians, and there is a common agenda. To borrow the words of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), if we want to be clear why cannot we be clear here, rather than leaving it to another body to make the decision for us? If we do not legislate clearly, and if we leave wooliness and vagueness, of course people will take advantage of that. Why are the Liberal Democrats not prepared to support the amendments?

Sandra Gidley: We have not yet declared our position, so the hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.
	Were we to go down a quota route for the different strands of discrimination, we would be faced with some real problems. Gender is potentially the biggest source of discrimination in society, but I would not necessarily insist on a 50 per cent. gender representation. Racial discrimination might be one of the more acute problems in society, but we run the risk of having a committee—I hesitate to use the word "tokenistic"—whose members are chosen because of what they are rather than because of what they can do and how they can progress the agenda.

Roger Berry: Will the hon. Lady and her colleagues support or oppose the Bill's provision that at least one commissioner should be or have been a disabled person?

Sandra Gidley: We have no particular problems with that, but that is the whole difficulty. Ideally, I would prefer there not to be different provisions for different strands of inequality. The Bill is an attempt to set up the commission, but several attempts have been made during the Bill's passage to try to address various other inequalities, mostly with a spectacular lack of success.

Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Lady accept that the first qualification for being a commissioner is a general understanding of the power processes in society, which could be satisfied by any member? There is also a need for knowledge of and interest in particular issues such as disability, for knowledge of issues from the perspective of a commissioner from Wales or Scotland, and for a guarantee that there will be commissioners who have direct experience of the application of racism, for which Labour Members are arguing.

Sandra Gidley: The issue of direct experience is fraught with problems, particularly in relation to disability. As has been mentioned, someone who uses a wheelchair has a different perspective on life from someone who has visual impairment or a hearing problem. Do we need to have people with direct experience of and an interest in a particular issue—we must not lose sight of the human rights aspect—and how relevant is it to be pigeonholed in such a way? I am not entirely convinced that that is necessary if other provisions are in place to make sure that the necessary groups are consulted adequately.
	One of the other problems, which one of the amendments attempts to address, is that black and ethnic minority communities undoubtedly experience discrimination, as do women. All the evidence shows that a black ethnic minority woman will experience more and enhanced discrimination. There is a case for considering some of the wider causes of discrimination in a more holistic way, rather than trying to tackle each separate strand. That is why I welcome the human rights-based approach.

Rob Marris: I will pose to the hon. Lady the question that I attempted to pose to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), although I am not sure that she quite understood it. Schedule 1, in part 5, contains provisions for a disability committee. The wording of that part of schedule 1 is on all-fours with amendment No. 9. Does the hon. Lady support the inclusion of a disability committee provision in the legislation, and if so, can she say that she supports amendment No. 9? If she does not support the inclusion of such a provision in schedule 1, why, if she wants to consider matters holistically, has she not tabled an amendment to remove it?

Sandra Gidley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but I have addressed it to a certain extent. This is an occasion when the Minister's response will be the key to how we vote if the House divides.

Philip Davies: The hon. Lady is making a thoughtful and balanced speech. Does she agree that the terms of recruitment for those bodies should be based on a person's ability to do the job, which is true equality? If we believe in equality we should ensure that the best person is chosen for the job, irrespective of their sex, race or background. Someone such as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is a good advocate for anti-discrimination without being from an ethnic minority. The chief executive of the Disabled Drivers Motor Club, Ed Passant, is an excellent advocate for the cause, but is not disabled himself. People do not have to be from certain backgrounds to be good advocates for the causes for which they are arguing.

Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman raises one of the key points. The danger with the amendments is that people are chosen because of what they are rather than   what they can bring. It is not necessarily the case that there is nobody available, but I am unconvinced that we are looking at the complete pool.
	It concerns me that black and ethnic minority groups feel disfranchised and I am not convinced that the CRE was the voice that it thought it was. The representations that I have received have been stronger and more forceful than those from the CRE at the beginning of the process. It concerns me that a body that has a useful function and has done many good things is perhaps not linking to other sectors of the black and ethnic minority communities as well as it could be.
	We must not be complacent, but we are in danger of becoming so if we say that we will set the quotas and the problem will be solved, as the people concerned will make sure that the issues are addressed. It is more important to ensure that mechanisms are built in to ensure adequate consultation with all members of society. If the Minister can reassure us on that point, there may for once be a case for saying let us trust the group and allow it to go ahead. The fundamental problem is one of discrimination per se, and it does not matter to me which strand of discrimination. We will get to the end result quicker if we stop thinking in silos and start thinking about the basic problem.

Roger Berry: It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and to welcome the Bill, which is part of the significant progress being made by the Government towards the creation of the kind of society where people can participate equally without the fear of discrimination or prejudice.
	I am delighted that we have a consensus, as we tend to have nowadays on equality issues—it is marvellous—on most of the key issues in relation to establishing a new commission for equality and human rights. A mere eight or nine years ago, the Conservatives were fighting tooth and nail against the setting up the Disability Rights Commission and were arguing on the quiet to get rid of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. In fairness, none of the Conservative Members present tonight was involved, but I am convinced that we would not have the Bill were it not for the fact that we have a Labour Government.
	I have, however, tabled amendments, for the obvious reason that I believe the Bill can be improved. I wish to support amendments Nos. 16 to 18, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I have reciprocated by attaching my name to all his amendments and he made powerful arguments in their support.
	The amendments are essentially those that were tabled on Report in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Ouseley. The purpose of amendment No. 18 is to address representation and ensure that the commission represents the society that it will serve.
	The Bill is a curious one in some respects, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) pointed out—indeed, he stole much of my speech. Schedule 1 contains a specific commitment that at least one commissioner will be, or will have been, a disabled person. I confess that I had considered asking for two or more disabled commissioners, but to my astonishment I discovered that we are still in the same position as with the first draft of the Bill: when it comes to the other equality strands, there is no provision whatever for commissioners with particular characteristics.
	My main concern over the years has been with the disability strand and I am delighted that the Government have accepted the principle that there should be at least one disabled person as a commissioner. A disabled person will bring experience to the commission that the commission should own and that experience is directly relevant and important enough to the work of the commission that we should legislate in that way. I cannot understand why the principle has been abandoned when it comes to gender or race.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is arguing two separate points and answers some of the questions that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) asked. There is a big difference between amendments No. 16 and No. 18, in that the first is general and speaks of
	"no fewer than one half",
	which is acceptable, while the second gives specific quotas and therefore is not. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman's point is absolutely correct.

Roger Berry: I was speaking to amendment No. 18 and was going to come to No. 16 in a moment. Amendment No. 18 is acceptable and should be supported because it would cater for a minimum provision of women and members of black and other ethnic minority communities as commissioners. It is acceptable because this House apparently, and quite rightly, is going to accept that at least one disabled person should serve as a commissioner. I do not understand why the Government have said that, as a matter of principle, there should be representation for disabled people on the commission but that that should not apply to women or members of black or other ethnic minority groups. That is why the amendment proposes that no fewer than half the commissioners should be women and that no fewer than one quarter should be   from black and other ethnic minority backgrounds. That is the same aim as that of amendment No. 10, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. It is not tokenism, nor is it denying the obvious, which is that people should be appointed on merit. It is simply an attempt to ensure that all communities are fairly represented as commissioners.
	The Government's arguments against the amendments have tended to be of the following kind: that it is possible under the Bill that we could have 10 white men, but as my very good friend the Minister rightly says, that could not possibly happen. No one believes that the Government would be so foolish as even to think of doing that. I genuinely believe that it has never crossed anyone's mind to have 10 white men serving on the commission, but nothing in the Bill would prevent a Government from appointing commissioners in that way.
	The Government have said that the need for flexibility in appointments requires that no such restrictions be imposed, but apparently, there can be restrictions in respect of appointing at least one disabled person. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that it would not be that difficult to make first-rate commission appointments on merit, with at least half the commissioners being women and at least one quarter representing black or other ethnic minority groups. Doing so would be no more difficult than appointing, on merit, a disabled person.
	Other Members referred to the third Government argument, which is that to appoint commissioners in such a way would reflect silo thinking. I understand the point and entirely oppose silo thinking in the commission's work. When the commission was proposed, I supported the idea of a single commission for equality and human rights, precisely because I oppose silo thinking. There were those in the disability movement, as in other equality strands, who had grave reservations about that idea. I had practical reservations about the manner in which the commission might be set up but, in principle, I have always supported a single commission, precisely because I oppose the silo mentality.
	A friend of mine, Professor Paul Steven Miller, was one of President Clinton's commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Washington DC. He is a disabled lawyer and he convinced me—as if I needed convincing—that, when people come through the door, the cause of discrimination may be not abundantly clear. People could be discriminated against on the grounds of race and gender, race and disability, disability and orientation, or goodness knows however many different circumstances. It is right to have a single commission to provide a service to people who allege discrimination; that is the only idea that makes sense. People being referred from one commission to another would not promote equality or human rights.
	I support the commission because I am against a silo mentality. I want people to feel assured that allegations of discrimination will be tackled holistically—another term used by Members today. Having said that, I do not believe that a representative commission is a threat, but rather that it is an opportunity. It would strengthen the expertise of the commissioners. Having commissioners who are disabled, or who have experienced discrimination as women or on the ground of race, would strengthen the commission, not weaken it.

Philip Davies: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work on disability over many years, but will he explain what somebody in a wheelchair knows about visual impairment that somebody who is not in a wheelchair does not?

Rob Marris: Where does one start?

Roger Berry: Yes, where does one begin? First, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) may have noticed from his constituency experience that there is a fair degree of communication between disabled people with different impairments. For example, people who use wheelchairs frequently talk to people who have a sight impairment or other such conditions. A strong network of disabled people's organisations share views, and as a result, they become better informed.
	I realise that, in establishing a representative commission, the question is where do we draw the line? It is self-evident—I did not expect to have to say this—that although the Bill, which the whole House will doubtless support, proposes creating 10 to 15 commissioners, we can all think of perhaps 50 different interests that we would like to be represented. I am talking about not an abstract situation but a real one, and I am simply suggesting that, just as we need to appoint someone with experience of disability, it is important that those with experience of discrimination on the grounds of gender and race are adequately represented on the commission.
	One may disagree with having 50 per cent. representation for women, but the point is that the Bill as drafted makes no provision for women at all. One may be against a quarter of commissioners coming from black and ethnic minority communities, but the Bill as drafted does not require that any commissioners come from such communities.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to trivialise the arguments in favour of representation? Some of us have heard those arguments trivialised for 20 years or more and it is sad to have to rehearse them. However, we are not talking about abstractions but about how to ensure that the commission draws on the many disabled people, women and black people who have a lifetime's knowledge of and expertise in campaigning on those issues. We are talking about how to ensure that the balance of expertise in the community is properly represented on the commission.

Roger Berry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
	Creating a more representative commission would strengthen the expertise available to the commissioners and give confidence to stakeholders, as several Members have pointed out. It is true that those from black and other ethnic minority groups in particular—along, of course, with the Commission for Racial Equality and the Greater London authority—have made a strong case for such representation, but so have others.
	It is because I favour making the commission more representative that I also support the creation of a race committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, it is self-evident that   amendment No. 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the   Member for Leicester, East, replicates part 5 of schedule 1, which deals with the establishment of the disability committee. But if the Bill is to provide for a   disability committee, why should it not provide for a race committee? Notwithstanding the question of consistency, it makes very good sense to create such a committee. Interestingly, at the outset of these discussions, the Disability Rights Commission suggested that, for a period, it might be necessary for each of the equality strands to have a committee, in order to pursue their interests.
	I repeat that the last thing that I want is for the commission to have a silo mentality—heaven forbid—but I do want it to have expertise; after all, that is how government is run. Any organisation that wants to use expertise efficiently might well find it useful to set up the odd committee in which such expertise can be found.
	I turn to amendments Nos. 16 and 17 and the point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) raised. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 proposes that the Secretary of State shall appoint an individual only if the person concerned
	"has experience or knowledge relating to a relevant matter, or . . . is suitable for appointment for some other special reason".
	I should have thought that that was stating the blindingly obvious. Those requirements are self-evident and I cannot imagine anyone seriously considering appointing a commissioner who did not have experience or knowledge that was relevant to the job. The provision should be tightened, which is why amendment No. 16 would
	"ensure that no fewer than one half of the Commissioners have personal or direct experience of one or more of the causes of discrimination and prejudice".
	I do not say that people who have not suffered discrimination can have no understanding of a society in which discrimination takes place, but those who have been victims of discrimination or prejudice have something very special to bring to the table. That is the reason for the amendment.
	When the amendments were discussed in the other place, the Lord Chancellor said:
	"I very much hope that, when the commission is appointed, its make-up will broadly reflect the balance that these amendments seek to secure".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2005; Vol. 674, c. 753.]
	I am sure that the Government do want that, but he talked about "hoping" that the commission would do that. We do not need to rely on hope because we can, in fact, legislate. The Government are not relying on hope on disability—they are legislating.
	I welcome the fact that the objective behind the amendments tabled by my colleagues and me is widely shared by the Government. It is only through primary legislation, however, that we can ensure that the commission is representative, rather than just hoping it might be. The Government have accepted that principle on the face of the Bill in relation to the appointment of a commissioner who is disabled and of the disability committee.
	Having a representative commission from the outset is essential if we are to have the expertise to do the job and if the commission is to win the trust of the communities whose members it will serve. In particular, I mean the communities who are most commonly victims of discrimination and prejudice. The Government clearly agree with that view. Those requirements should therefore be in the Bill. If they will not accept the amendments, they will, in my humble opinion, have to come up with some absolutely cast iron guarantees that the commissioners and the structure of the commission will indeed be along the lines for which most right hon. and hon. Members have argued.

Tim Boswell: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), who has considerable expertise in the field of disability and with whom, through my own involvement in that area, I have collaborated constructively in the past. He made some trenchant points about not thinking within a silo mentality. From my own experience, I came at the issue with an interest in disability and found myself driven by the fact of discrimination to take a lively interest, too, in issues of gender equality and race equality. In the end, they become indivisible, which is the compelling case for having a single commission.
	I like, as it were, to play mental games when anticipating ministerial arguments, and I have been trying hard to do so on why there should be any justification for the special treatment of disability in the Bill. One could say it is because Bert Massey and the Disability Rights Commission were not very happy about it, and that is certainly true. That may well be reflected in the Bill, but in trying to produce acceptable and defensible arguments for the Minister—I offer them to her for nothing—there seem to me to be two.
	First, the Disability Rights Commission is relatively new in comparison with the other equality bodies. Secondly, the nature of the discrimination concerned is, as it were, more by analogue than by digital: whereas one is either a racist or one is not, and one is either a feminist or one is not, the test in relation to disability is whether reasonable adjustments are being made, which is a much more opaque area.
	Having said which, I have absolutely convinced myself that those arguments are implausible. To return to the beginning of the Report stage, it seems that the Government have already conceded the primary point, as they did on the first group of amendments about the   difference between sexual orientation and transgendered people. Having provided to legislate for one group, it seemed difficult to many of us not to legislate for the second. Having provided to legislate for disability, it equally seems difficult not to argue the case for legislating on race. I was particularly attracted by amendment No. 16, at least in that it provides an instruction to Ministers on good practice, which they should adopt.
	As the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) developed his case with his characteristic charm and eloquence, I found myself increasingly warming towards it. As I went through the nature of the argument in the same way that I did on the amendment spoken to by the hon. Member for Kingswood, I anticipated all the ministerial problems. I am sure that the Minister has a great big brief in front of her—I speak from experience—that bears the six-letter word "resist". It will say that first, we need flexibility, and, secondly, it would be insulting to type people by their particular cases. How can we know that people are not multifunctional in two or three areas of disability? Why should we seem to single out one group when we cannot, for example, appoint a transgendered person because we would run out of places on any reasonably sized commission? Would that not send the wrong signals? And Ministers have the right intentions anyway. I think that the Minister has to show the House tonight that the Government do have the right intention, which is to produce a multifunctional and effective commission that is seen to represent the interests engaged in this important area.
	The one point on which I perhaps did not quite agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East—I think I did not; it may have been misinterpretable—was his remark that there are good race relations in this country. I think that that is the case, but we have an obligation to maintain perpetual vigilance, at which I see him nodding. One does not have to agree with every last word that Trevor Phillips said in his rather controversial speech at least to be aware that things can go wrong. Indeed, in other countries with rather less of a multiculturalist tradition than ours—France, in particular—they have gone wrong. We should be conscious that at the very moment when we think things are all right, they may be formally so but that does not necessarily mean that there is deep engagement. That will take more than one generation to achieve and will vary very much with levels of education and experience in particular areas. I am conscious of what one of my colleagues once described as the kind of polite apartheid that can apply in some cities: different ethnic groups may stand off without actually falling out with one another but find little affinity or involvement. That is not a happy position, although those are perhaps wider issues that we cannot develop in full tonight.
	Implicit in what the hon. Member for Leicester, East said was the idea that the Bill is all about something real—a significant economic imbalance. If one considers the proportion of people from ethnic minorities who are unemployed, the rates of pay that those in work receive and the general economic position, the figures are still depressingly unpositive. There is a problem and we cannot fail to start by acknowledging that.
	If that is the economic side, the other side is representation or stakeholder involvement, which is what the amendment and the debate are about. If people do not feel that they have a stake in this country and that their interests are being taken seriously and represented, we should be ashamed of ourselves in this place, but whether we are or are not, we are building up problems for the future. We have to involve all our people, and I did not need the recent change in the leadership of my party to reinforce my views in support of that. If one is a one-nation politician of any party, one is about bringing people together and recognising that they have views, aspirations, fears and experiences that need to be taken extremely seriously.
	In relating all that to the substance of the debate, it seemed to me that I should like three sets of assurances from the Minister. The first is on the wider work of the Commission for Racial Equality. It would be useful if she could put on the record how some of the other functions—what I might call the positive functions—of the CRE are to be discharged, particularly its work on local racial integration. Many of us feel strongly that that should continue and be safeguarded, and is—in a sense, although I do not wish to give a hierarchy—more important than the mere legal enforcement of equality. Both are extremely important, but the positive approach, which says, "Let's encourage good practice and good race relations", is an important part. Some of that activity may transfer to the new commission, but it would be useful if the Minister could confirm that.
	The second issue is economic imbalance and I hope that Trevor Phillips's commission will carry out some studies on that. My party will not prescribe a magic solution that would somehow produce economic equality overnight, but no one should be comfortable unless we are working towards that.
	The third issue is the institutional and operational matters that are under debate in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was right to mention staff issues because, in my sad experience, they are not always well handled by Governments, of whichever party, in legislation. The issue of participation is central and whether we have a separate race committee or another structure—the Minister may come up with a good argument on that—the institution will not work unless people feel comfortable with it and that it has some relevance to them.
	The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned India, and I should point out that Lord Irwin, as he then was, was rather a rather liberal—if it is not derogatory to use the word these days—Viceroy, but he was wrestling with a commission that was a non-starter because it was all Brits and no Indians. That does not work, because any structure needs to be acceptable to the various communities involved.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend makes his point pithily and eloquently, as ever. With due respect, may I take him back to a point that was interestingly but wrongly made by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) earlier? She mentioned a possible analogy between the issue we are debating and the role of a midwife. Does a midwife have to have given birth to be a suitable person to deliver a baby? What we are talking about here is not a one-off function: it is an ongoing advocacy and representational role, and that is the important point that we have to bear in mind.

Tim Boswell: I agree, and had I wished to indulge myself earlier I would have taken up the hon. Lady on a related point to her analogy of the midwife. At least part of the case that she made is that a midwife, whether or not she has given birth, should be experienced and knowledgeable about people giving birth and, by definition, sympathetic to them. A midwife should not be multifunctional and also act as a physiotherapist, occupational therapist or speech therapist in her spare time. Therefore, we need people on the commission who are heavyweights, who understand what is involved and who can engage with and win the confidence of the minority communities, minority interests and others who might be discriminated against.
	I love moving amendments and trying to get a Bill right, and part of that includes the cerebral function and taking a cool look at how legislation works, as with the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) rightly made about the administrative cost of the new commission. However, it is also important to understand that the process includes an element of emotional intelligence and the reflection of anger and disquiet in the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) asked about the common feature and I think that at least part of it is the anger people feel—for example, whatever their skin colour—at the discrimination that they have endured for no good reason and, sometimes, as they see it, as the fault of society. The Bill will not solve all ills, but we could make a start by saying that it should reflect not only the best structure that we can produce, but the anger of individuals about how they have been treated and a determination across all the parties to do our level best to see that that does not happen in the future.

Diane Abbott: I wish to speak in support of the amendments that would introduce a race committee and   provide proper representation among the commissioners. I also support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and other colleagues on issues of staff protection, and I hope that the Minister will take them seriously.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) reminded the House, it is some 20 years since he and I were first selected as prospective parliamentary candidates, together with Bernie Grant and Paul Boateng. We were not selected because of our good looks and charisma, at random or as an act of patronage by our leadership. Indeed, as a group, we were regarded with some fear—yes, even my hon. Friend—when we first entered the House in 1987. We were selected on the back of a feeling in society that had arisen because of the riots in London, Bristol and Liverpool in the early 1980s. There was a strong feeling in society at the time, especially in the communities from which we were selected, that it was high time that, towards the end of the 20th century, this House of Commons started to look like the people of Britain.
	The argument, which was accepted on all sides at the time, was that for young black and Asian people to feel part of and engaged with this society, they had to see representation at the highest level. That was not because only black and Asian people can understand the issues of black people and other ethnic minorities. Nor was it because of quotas or numbers. Nor was it because in an ideal world it would not matter what colour MPs were. The idea was that representation mattered because of what it said about an institution. People can read about issues of discrimination and even do dissertations on them, but unless they have lived them and felt them, they will not be able to give them the emphasis that only living them gives.
	I have heard all the mockery about needing to have a one-legged person, one blind person and one Chinese person for the past 20 years, but the arguments on representation are about the legitimacy of institutions and the wealth of talent available to institutions. If the arguments about representation were valid for the House of Commons 20 years ago, how much more valid are the same arguments for this commission on equality today? I beg Members not to have a continuous rehearsal of arguments that we heard 20 years ago. If the case for representation was important 20 years ago, it is—if anything—more important today.

Philip Davies: The hon. Lady is here because of her ability, and so is the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). Does she agree that true equality means that the best person for the job is given the job, whatever their background? If that means that all the people on the commission are black, so be it. If that means that all the people on the commission have a disability, so be it. While we talk about quotas and look at people on the basis of their colour or whether they are disabled, we will never have true equality. It should be irrelevant what colour people are or whether they have a disability: what matters is that we have good people, whatever their background.

Diane Abbott: Of course, in an ideal world colour, gender, sexuality or physical challenges would not matter, but we are not in an ideal world and all my experience of these issues, which goes back a few years before the hon. Gentleman entered the House, tells me that unless we debate representation, raise the issue and put in place the structures and the law to ensure it—as we are calling for in this case—we will find that the majority of people best placed to empathise with the issues are somehow, magically, always white males. Time after time, that is the practical outcome.
	I am old enough to remember when the CRE was set up and am the first to acknowledge that although it has had some excellent leaders, it has not been as effective in recent years as it might have been. I am the first to acknowledge that the CRE has faced challenges as an institution, but I remind the House that when it was set up in 1977 it embodied the best and most hopeful aspirations of our society for racial equality. In those early years, it attracted the best and brightest members of our black and Asian community. The House should also remember that the CRE is not just a London organisation; in community after community, in town after town, local racial equality committees, often with only one or two paid staff, do incredible work 18 hours a day, as beacons, fighting for equality in their community.
	As this debate may be our last chance to say anything about the CRE before it goes in two years' time, we should not just look at where it has failed and where we might disagree with one of its chairs on a particular issue. We should look at the hopes and aspirations that it embodied and at the incredibly brave work of hundreds upon hundreds of individuals for the national body or for their community, long before race and equality were fashionable or acceptable. It would be wrong for the House not to acknowledge the contribution that the CRE has made to ensuring that we do not see in our society what the French saw last summer—community after community in flames.
	I entirely concede that the CRE may not have achieved all that we hoped. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, I do not agree with what Trevor Phillips said about multiculturalism, but we should not forget what the CRE represented, the hopes it embodied and the real achievements of individuals associated with it.

Andrew Pelling: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diane Abbott: No, I must make progress.
	Of course, I support bringing all the equality strands into one commission, but my fear is that unless we get the legislation and the structures right, the commission will embody what I have seen so often, whether at local   authority, non-governmental organisation or Government level: lowest common denominator equality, which is no good for anyone, although it provides a laugh for some people who are hostile to the whole notion of equalities in principle. Lowest common denominator equality sells every equality strand short. Sadly, it is my experience that if race is merged with other equalities issues, without sufficient thought and care about the structures, race inevitably falls to the   bottom of the agenda. That is why, when the Government set up a working party to look into the matter, out of 28 people there were only three visible minorities. When we say that we want not just assurances but legislation and structures, we are not looking in the crystal ball, we are reading the book.
	It astonishes me that two years after my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and I took a group of concerned parliamentarians to see Ministers, the Government have not moved on the issue. As I said earlier, I am arguing not for a hierarchy of equalities, but that, based on my experience of working on equality for 30 years—not just as an MP, but in my trade union and my community—all the equality strands have a distinct character. On employment, for example, the problem for most white women is how to get through the glass ceiling: the problem for most black people is how to get through the door. Of course, the commission must broker a collective view at the end of the day, but unless there are people on it who understand the distinctions between the challenges faced by disabled persons, by people whose problem is their colour or by women, we shall end up with lowest common denominator solutions that pay lip service to, but do not address, the difficult issues.
	Many issues concerned with race are difficult. This society still finds it difficult to face many of the realities about race. When I started raising the issue of the underachievement of black boys, white people asked me whether it was not a little embarrassing to talk about that. I was not afraid to talk about it, because the issue is real and it needs to be addressed. However, if we have a commission with no structures and without the right legislation, the temptation will be to duck the difficult issues; there will be lowest common denominator equalities.
	Ministers talk about empathy and hoping. No individual in the black community is more committed to institutions, to the state and to making things work through the political process than I am, but there are persons out there in our communities who are really not that interested in middle-class white men empathising with their situation; they want representation and stakeholder involvement. We have heard about Lord Halifax and the end of the Indian empire, but I have to tell the House that the days of white men empathising with the situation of other people have long been left behind. I do not say that because we are not all people and because everybody cannot represent everybody else, but because institutions are more than the sum of their parts. They are about what they say—the message they give to a society. So when Ministers tell me that they hope that the commission will not be all white men, what do they mean? They are Ministers. If they want to ensure that the commission has proper representation, the remedy is in their hands. They can put those matters on the face of the Bill.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East that the Government have made progress on inequalities. This society has made progress on equalities in the 20 years since I have been a Member of Parliament; indeed, sometimes society makes progress ahead of politicians and they have to scrabble to keep up. We have made progress, but if the commission goes ahead with the Government resolutely refusing to listen to the united voice of black and Asian communities and the Bill goes forward without a race committee, without the proper structural arrangements, we shall set the race issue in this country back many years.
	Ministers say to me, "Diane, why are you going on about race? The issues are different now, it's all about human rights." All the issues are serious, but if they do not have mind to the race issue, it will have a way of forcing itself back on to the political agenda. Rather than the House having to create structures and produce law to deal with a situation where black, Asian or minority persons feel disfranchised and marginalised, why do not we this evening ensure that we have the thought-out structures and arrangements that will reassure black and Asian people that just as representation mattered to the House of Commons 20 years ago, it matters for the new equality commission? I could not let the debate go past without speaking on this matter, because representation is important.
	Of course, I am here to represent everybody and I try to balance every view in my constituency and work for every community. However, the people, black and white, who worked so hard to elect me in 1987 would have been disappointed if, at a point when the Government are being completely obdurate and it seems as though there is no hope, I had not stood up and spoken to this issue. That is what representation is about. It is not about advancing the issue when it is easy, or when a Member is in a majority, or when the Government are on their side; it is about advancing the issue because it has to be done—because that is where we come from and where we learn and, in the end, we know that we are answerable.

Harry Cohen: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who is my good friend and parliamentary colleague. I fully agree with her. I did not want to interrupt her passionate flow in the debate. She talked about the local race equality councils, but from my experience as a Member of Parliament since 1983, and as a local councillor for 11 years before that, I can say that the local race equality councils stopped serious trouble in parts of our country. I note that there is no guarantee of any local institution being set up, following from this measure.
	My amendment—No. 26—is about setting up a London committee, but before I talk about that, I want to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for suggesting that there should be a race committee. I fully support the eloquent and strong case that he made. Indeed, I have added my name to the amendments that he tabled in that regard.
	I should also like to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), who talked about the need for the commissioners to have direct experience of the discrimination strands that they are suppose to represent—that was Lord Ouseley's amendment in the other place. I referred to that on Second Reading, during an intervention, and I still do not think that that has been properly addressed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, the Minister and the Government are hoping that it will come about. I should prefer that to be included in the Bill.
	I was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about TUPE rights, which are important, and trade union rights. I saw a little bit of data from the last honours list that shows that, whereas scores of businessman got gongs, only three trade unionists did so—and two of them were from trade unions that are not in the TUC. There is a case to be made for trade union representation on organisations such as the CEHR. It is sad that a Labour Back Bencher has to argue for that.
	I return to amendment No. 26 and the case for a London committee. I am arguing the case put forward, for example, by the Mayor of London, who said in his representations to hon. Members:
	"The Equality Bill does not recognise the unique devolution arrangements in London. The Bill should establish a London Committee, in line with the decision-making committees proposed for Scotland and Wales."
	Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has said, if this is okay in relation to a disability commissioner, if it is okay to have a race commissioner and a race committee and if that is all right for Scotland and Wales, it should be all right for London as well. London has more extensive discrimination problems, but also more positive experiences than the other regions on how to bring about solutions to the problems that we face in the discrimination streams. There is a big case for the London committee. That London context provides unique lessons, opportunities and challenges with regard to equality and diversity. London is one of the most diverse cities in the world and is certainly unique in the UK context.

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend made the point that we will be losing the race equality councils and the local connection. Bearing in mind that more than 300 languages are spoken in London, that more than 14 faiths are represented in the community and that almost 50 per cent. of ethnic minorities live in London, does not that compound the need and the call for a London committee?

Harry Cohen: Absolutely. My hon. Friend has been looking over my shoulder at the next point in my speech, which contained those important statistics. I will not repeat them, but they are important. That level of diversity is unmatched, certainly in this country. Some 30 per cent. of residents are from ethnic minority backgrounds. There are also more ethnic minority businesses in the capital—a greater concentration of them.
	There are more than 60,000 voluntary organisations, a significant number of which are involved with ethnic minority concerns and the ethnic minority sector. London is the base for the highest number of listed public bodies subject to the race equality duty, and those will soon have the disability and gender duties. London has a specific element that cannot be safely and properly abrogated or absorbed into the nationwide body.

David Winnick: I am not a London Member, but I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is saying. I introduce what is not, I hope, considered a controversial point among one or two colleagues. Would not race relations in our capital be strengthened if a visiting cleric with notorious racist views on Jews or homosexuals was not embraced, whether by the Mayor of London or anyone else? If we are against racism, surely we are against all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, presumably.

Harry Cohen: That sort of issue provides a perfect case for having a London committee. That point could not be more relevant. However, I will not get drawn into that; I shall discuss that matter with my hon. Friend on another day and another occasion.
	I shall read another part of the Mayor's briefing, although it is a bit jargony. I want to read it into the record, because I think that the point is made. The Mayor's staff say:
	"A Greater London Committee would enhance the work of the CEHR by helping to ensure . . . a regional focus on London appropriate to London's size, demography, complexity and diversity, and experience in developing and delivering equality policies . . . appropriate engagement with London's unique governance arrangements . . . synergy between regional strategies and national strategy and policy"
	and
	"tailored stakeholder engagement and dialogue, which will aid clear and transparent channels of communication."
	That is a bit jargony, but when hon. Members read it in Hansard, they will see the point.

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the points that he is making, because there is dynamic change in London's population. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) indicated that there can be many controversies within London's governance and perhaps there is value in a London committee intervening occasionally when some of the local CRE bodies get into difficulty.

Harry Cohen: I want to return to that point, which is well made. It would be better if there were a London committee that worked together with, for example, the GLA, the Mayor and other stakeholders—to use that jargon—when we have an important issue on race to discuss.
	The Commission for Racial Equality sent to Members its concerns and one of them was about the location. It recognised that the CEHR will be
	"based at two sites, with a majority of CEHR staff based in Manchester. This is a disappointing development, as despite having a 'significant presence' in London, the CRE believes it is vital that the headquarters of the new body be located in London . . . London is still the centre of decision making in the UK. In order for the CEHR to be a powerful, influential body, it needs to be located where the majority of decision makers are also located."
	All the ministries are in London. The Prime Minister is in London; the Treasury is in London; the major health authorities and bodies to do with policy making are in London; the main police force is in London; and the courts are in London. In the private sector, the City of London is the finance capital, and the stock exchange is in London. Much of business is in London and there needs to be a connection.

Meg Munn: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to come to Sheffield to talk to the range of civil servants who work for the Government and who are based in Sheffield. Not everybody is in London.

Harry Cohen: I take that point and I agree with moving some of the ministries out of London. Why do we not have the CEHR's headquarters in London where the main ministries are and a "significant presence" outside the capital?

Barbara Keeley: I apologise for not being present earlier, but I have been following the debate elsewhere.
	Many hon. Members and many agencies believe that it is vital that the CEHR is a new, single statutory body that can offer integrated advice and guidance, and that is the problem. Does my hon. Friend not see that the amendment and the idea of a London committee work against that aim? People who favour London rather than Manchester as the location for the main services of the new body are almost striving to split it. The key point is that it is integrated and can offer advice by working across all the disciplines. The question of the CEHR's location has been settled and the amendment would work against the key features that would make the commission work as a body.

Harry Cohen: I agree that the commission must be integrated and cover the whole country and that it needs to be effective. However, on the specific point of how it lobbies and gets in touch with the policy makers, I should point out that the policy makers are not in Manchester or Sheffield. They are in London. The CRE and the new commission need to be able to approach them.

Sandra Gidley: Does the hon. Gentleman consider the EOC and the Disability Rights Commission to be ineffective because they are based in Manchester?

Harry Cohen: I am not saying that those bodies are ineffective, although I would have liked both to have been more effective. I certainly think that the EOC would have been more effective if it had been based in London and had more ready access to Ministers. The argument that I am making is that made by the CRE itself and not just by the Mayor of London, me and other London Labour Members. The CRE is saying that its successor body needs to be in London to be effective.

Dawn Butler: As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said, who will carry the mantle of race equalities? The establishments that he named—the National Assembly Against Racism, Operation Black Vote and the Greater London assembly—are based in London and have regular meetings with key stakeholders. If this strand is to be effective, it must have strong, cohesive links in London.

Harry Cohen: I agree with that very well made point. That is why I think that a London committee would be extremely beneficial. Even if the other headquarters were in Manchester, a London committee would provide a focus and enable the commission to lobby more effectively.

John McDonnell: I understand the argument of London versus the regions, but many of us in London have supported measures to tackle unemployment by the devolution of decision making and administrative units to the regions. However, any such moves must take account of the impact that they have on human beings. We have many staff in the existing organisations and 60 per cent. of the CRE's staff are from ethnic minority groups, 40 per cent. of the DRC's staff are disabled and 80 per cent. of the EOC's staff are women. Many of those groups also have caring responsibilities, with their roots in London. The move that has now been determined could have been handled so much better if there had been adequate trade union consultation, which there has not been, on the impact on those people's lives.

Harry Cohen: That is a very well made point. I will not dwell on it but we have had representations from the DRC that expresses concern that its staff in London should be properly protected. On the gender argument, we know that, in the capital, many women's issues can "disappear" when it comes to addressing their needs. Such specific issues for women would be better addressed if there were a London committee.
	Let me refer again to the representations from the Mayor and the CRE. The Mayor says:
	"Locating the CEHR in Manchester risks a downgrading and isolation of the institution, which all efforts must be taken to safeguard against."
	The CRE says:
	"We feel that downgrading equality in this way will cause considerable detriment to those from ethnic minority and other disadvantaged groups.
	The concerns expressed could not be clearer, and a London committee could mitigate against the effects of what is being proposed.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, of course, Manchester is a wonderful city and that we support moves to create employment outside London? However, there must be the suspicion that some people in government believe that putting the new commission in Manchester means out of sight, out of mind.

Harry Cohen: Absolutely, and that fear was expressed in the comments I have just read out, and particularly by the CRE.
	I hesitate to say this because some of my colleagues might not like it, but the argument is a bit like that over schools, sex offenders and different lists. We get into a muddle when we have different lists. In London, we have the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor and they have a role in relation to race equality duties. If the CEHR does not have a London committee, it will come in from afar and make pronouncements, statements and policies on race matters. We will then get mixed messages, unco-ordinated messages and perhaps opposing messages. That would be pretty disastrous in a situation similar to the one that took place during the riots in France. The bodies need to be together and must work together, and that means that there is a powerful case for a London committee.
	I return to where we started and the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington made about local race equality councils that did so well. I hope that it will come about, but there is no guarantee of anything like a representational structure at a local level. At the very least, there needs to be a regional commitment where it matters, and it matters in London. We do not want what happened in France—in the main, it was in and around Paris—to occur here. We do not want riots and a festering situation in which people do not think that the injustices that they feel can be addressed. They need to be able to go to a body in London that is concerned with those injustices. Such a committee must be based in London.
	I was not trying to make a regional case in which London was set against the rest. However, for the commission to be effective, it must have a London committee. That is why I tabled my amendment.

Rob Marris: I somewhat disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen). I do not demur from having a London committee, but I do not think that a committee for London, as a unique region in England, needs to be provided for by the Bill. Paragraph 11 of schedule 1 makes provision for the commission to set up funded, decision-making committees.
	My hon. Friend's arguments on amendment No. 26 in favour of a London committee would be better put to the commission after the Bill is passed, as I hope that it will. We could then consider a series of regional committees, such as one for the greater west midlands, which has a slightly higher population than Scotland. If Scotland and Wales are to get their own committees—I am sure that it is obvious to hon. Members why that should be—I would welcome a debate on regional committees for England. We should not forestall that debate by providing for just a London committee in the Bill, especially given that paragraph 11 of schedule 1 would allow the commission to set up a London, west midlands, or east midlands committee. I would prefer to leave the matter to the commission than to accept amendment No. 26.
	I hope that the Minister will give us reassurances about staff and the TUPE stuff to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred when he spoke to amendment No. 24. We also need reassurances about matters that are not covered by TUPE, especially pensions and relocation. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give us chapter and verse on all the details tonight, but I hope that she will choose to reassure hon. Members that the needs of the employees of various bodies who might be displaced, or may have to reapply for jobs when the commission comes in, will be addressed and that their continuity of employment will be assured if, as one hopes, they get jobs in the new body.
	I support the concept of a single equalities commission. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) said, I do not want any silos. I want simplification, as I said earlier. A holistic approach has been mentioned, and although I am open to correction, there is a holistic approach to most of the strands of equality and anti-discrimination stuff that we have now. There is a holistic approach on remedies because people go to an employment tribunal. It might seem strange that people who suffer race discrimination when they are not served in a bar because of the colour of their skin go to an employment tribunal—formerly known as an industrial tribunal—but I think that it is still the case. It is desirable to continue a holistic approach with a single commission and equalities body and to continue the drive towards simplification so that it becomes easier for people to assert their rights.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) referred to costs when she spoke to amendment No. 42, which would provide for a report to go to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. According to the Government's projections, the new body will cost less than 50 per cent. more than the existing framework. The hon. Lady first said that the costs would be many times more than current costs, and then that they would be twice as great. When she was told about the Government's estimates, she understandably said that she was sure that the overall bill for the six strands covered by the Bill would be more than twice the £48 million that the current three strands cost, or more than £96 million. Leaving aside for a minute the start-up costs—there are start-up costs for a new organisation—relocation costs and so on, I will wager her £100, payable to a charity, that the costs in the first year will not exceed £96 million.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the hon. Gentleman's wager.

Roger Berry: Double it.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, but I will not go for double or quits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) urges—I am sure that you would not allow me to, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Sadiq Khan: Even if the costs were as large as Her Majesty's official Opposition suggest, does my hon. Friend agree that the commission could be considered as a loss-leader because of the benefit that we will gain? On a cost-benefit analysis, using the widest possible talent in our community—whether we are considering employment or people being served in a bar—is worthy of a reasonable cost.

Rob Marris: I entirely agree and touched on that matter earlier when I made an intervention on the hon. Member for Epping Forest. She chose not to answer my question about how much she would be prepared to pay for anti-discrimination legislation, so I hope that she will answer now. It is a pity that she remains in a sedentary position and will not follow on from the point   that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) made.

Eleanor Laing: I did answer the question. My answer was precisely that the amount was the £48 million that it is at present, plus the corresponding amount for adding three new strands, minus the amount that could be saved due to economies of scale. That was my answer, and the amount comes to less than £96 million.

Rob Marris: That reply is rather interesting and revealing. If I go into a retailer and ask the price of a television, I do not expect to be told, "We calculate it by taking account of rent, lighting costs and VAT," because I expect to be told the price. However, I understand that the hon. Lady cannot give a price.

Eleanor Laing: It is not possible to put an exact price on defending and promoting equality, which is a matter of principle to which we are all absolutely committed.

Rob Marris: I am now slightly more confused because I thought that the hon. Lady was putting a price on that earlier when she said that she thought that the cost would be more than £96 million—more than twice the £48 million. I take the point that she was not saying that that cost would not be justified.
	I suggested earlier to the hon. Lady that there was a contradiction because she and her party appeared to be sitting on the fence on amendment No. 9, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I asked her whether she would support a race committee given that neither she nor her hon. Friends had tabled an amendment to remove the provisions in schedule 1 on the disability committee. She responded that I was urging her to do something that she had not the power to do, but that she hoped to be in ministerial office soon—I thought that that was rather optimistic of her. Forgive me if I misunderstand the procedures of the House after nearly five years here, but I thought that any hon. Member could table an amendment on Report. The hon. Lady chose—quite properly, I must say—not to table an amendment to remove the provisions on the disability committee, but she was incorrect to suggest that it was not in her power to table such an amendment.
	I am rather attracted to amendment No. 16, which refers to the make-up of the commission. There is a contradiction between providing for a disability committee in the Bill and not providing for a race committee. I am entirely happy that the Bill provides for a specified commissioner with a disability in paragraph 1(3)(a) of schedule 1, but it is a contradiction that the Bill does not provide for commissioners representing the other five strands. The Bill contains contradictions.
	I understand that there are different ways of approaching things. Judge Rosalie Abella said powerfully about a similar situation in Canada in the 1980s that equality sometimes means treating people the same and sometimes means treating people differently. That is one of the touchstones by which I live when I   consider discrimination measures. Equality is not mechanical. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is no longer in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the   Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was very restrained when she heard from him the arguments that she knows viscerally from her experience as a black woman in our society—I know of them one removed after talking to people—and we had 20 or 30 years ago. The hon. Gentleman certainly looks less than 40. Where have some Conservative Members been for the past 20 years? I salute the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen for at least getting up to about the end of 20th century with this stuff and welcome the fact that several Conservative Members have struggled into the 21st century, but some Conservative Back Benchers really have a pretty antediluvian approach to the matter. We should not have to go through such arguments again and again in the Chamber and elsewhere and it is sad that we must do so.
	From my hon. Friend the Minister I seek assurances regarding the staff, and in particular an explanation of the contradictions between the treatment of disability and the treatment of race. That is not to say that the other four strands are unimportant, I hasten to add, but disability is mentioned at least twice in the Bill—in relation to a commissioner with a disability and a disability committee. In race, we are dealing with an incredibly important strand to me, the Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton, South-West, which was previously represented by that notorious racist Powell. Such matters are extremely important in my constituency. There is a contradiction in relation to a race committee and I beg the Minister to explain that contradiction. If she does not, amendment No. 9 and those that flow from it will be extremely attractive to me.

Meg Munn: I thank hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friends, for raising some important issues relating to the new commission. We all share a concern to ensure that the new commission is able to operate efficiently, effectively, fairly and with the confidence of the many communities who will look to it for leadership and support.
	Amendment No. 43 would dilute the commission's requirement to have regard to the importance of exercising its clause 10 duties for groups defined by race, religion or belief. We have made it clear throughout the debates on the Bill here and in the other place that there will be no diminution in the powers and responsibilities that the new commission will inherit from its predecessor bodies. That has been a fundamental principle as we progress towards establishing the new commission.
	An important part of the new body's success will be its ability to do as much as, and more than, our existing arrangements. Alone among the existing equality commissions the Commission for Racial Equality has a duty to promote good relations between people of different racial groups. In addition, in 2000 we amended the Race Relations Act 1976 to require public bodies to have regard for the need to promote good relations between racial groups. The new commission will have to carry forward the historical legacy of the CRE and work with public bodies to help them to comply with the race equality duty.
	Hon. Members will know that the Commission for Racial Equality has, since its inception, supported a strong network of local race equality councils and other organisations delivering local race equality work. Many of us are familiar with their work and the important role that they play in our constituencies, particularly among those who have experienced discrimination or unfair treatment because of their race or religion. I met recently with the chair of the British Federation of Race Equality Councils; the federation is concerned to ensure that the councils' work is able to continue and I look forward to continuing our discussions to ensure that that is the case.
	For those reasons, we have required the commission to have particular regard to its duties in clause 10 and the importance of exercising them in relation to groups defined by race, religion or belief. That is an important guarantee to the CRE, the race equality councils and others who do local race equality work, and to black and minority ethnic communities in this country. I believe that we have found the right balance between acknowledging the historical legacy of the commission's good relations work and the need to ensure that the concerns of all its interest groups are heard and addressed.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister's explanation which, combined with the impassioned speeches made by some Labour Back Benchers, has led me to decide not to pursue amendment No. 43.

Meg Munn: I thank the hon. Lady.
	Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John   McDonnell), are designed to protect the position of those who work for the existing commissions. We are aware that a transition of the type in prospect always gives rise to concerns and uncertainty among staff and we are committed to a well managed, open and transparent transition process in which staff are fully consulted.
	I can reassure my hon. Friend by confirming that it is our intention that the full protection of TUPE will apply to all staff of the existing three commissions. I also assure him that it is not our intention to transfer any staff to the new commission without the full protection of TUPE. We are working closely with employee representatives and senior management of the existing commissions to develop the most effective way forward in that and related matters. We have established a union forum to act as a consultative mechanism on the commission for equality and human rights between the   commissions and recognised trade unions, with Government participation.
	The provisions of clause 39(5) will, in effect, safeguard the existing terms and conditions of those staff who transfer into the new commission and ensure that their period of employment continues with the new commission without being counted as a break in service for either employment or pension rights. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's specific question. TUPE applies to all contractual terms and conditions and includes an existing right to a redundancy payment. In addition to that statutory protection, it is Government policy to ensure that staff who transfer from one public sector organisation to another are no worse off as a result of that transfer.
	TUPE protection will also apply to staff transferring under a transfer scheme whenever they join the CEHR, whether that is before the new commission becomes operational—our target date is October 2007—or when the CRE folds in 2009, or any time in between. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Rob Marris: Will my hon. Friend assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and me that the welcome protection to which she has referred will also cover pensions?

Meg Munn: Yes, that is my understanding.
	In amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 20, my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and for Hayes and Harlington have sought to strengthen representation on the commission to ensure that it properly reflects the society in which we live and that it includes those with the experience that they consider necessary for the commission to function effectively. The difficulty of the approach reflected in the amendment is that it encourages an ever-growing list of the sorts of people who must be appointed, and there is always someone who gets left off a list and others who spend much time making the case for being on the list.
	Following the publication of our White Paper on the new commission, we received more than 400 detailed and considered responses. The overwhelming majority of those supported establishing a board that could operate in the interests of all, rather than as discrete champions of specific strands jockeying for attention.

Diane Abbott: I understand the logic of saying that no single group should specifically be represented among the commissioners, but what is the logic of specifying in the Bill representation for disabled people, but not for any other group?

Meg Munn: I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me. I shall speak to that matter later in my speech and I am confident that I shall cover all the points that have been made. I think that that will enable us to make progress more quickly, but she can intervene again if she feels that I have not addressed her point.
	The Government are aware that many communities and interest groups wanted reassurance that the appointments to the board would be based on knowledge and experience. We therefore took specific steps to ensure that knowledge and experience of discrimination would be key criteria for the appointment of commissioners. I assure hon. Members that when the Bill mentions knowledge and experience, it means experience of discrimination.

Keith Vaz: I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me for not waiting until the end of her speech to intervene, but it is important to probe her on that point.
	What happens if the commission does not appoint sufficient numbers of black and Asian people, trade unionists or women to a committee? What will the Minister do about that? She does not appear to have changed her position since Committee stage; she is merely repeating what she said before.

Meg Munn: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall make that clear well before the end of my speech and hon. Members may intervene again to clarify various points.
	Such knowledge and experience will include personal or direct experience of discrimination, so the provisions of the Bill are not at odds with the intention behind the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood. Those with knowledge and experience of discrimination and human rights are only one part of the equation; we also need to draw on the knowledge and experience of those who will be responsible for complying with the law, improving good practice and identifying the most effective way of delivering the changes that we want. Many people who have direct experience of discrimination also have that experience, too. Given that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to consider knowledge and experience of the functions of the commission when making the appointments, we have made provision to take account of expertise in the trades union movement and in business as well as employers' concerns in the delivery of public services and in good governance and management.
	It would be inconceivable that the board would consist only of white, heterosexual males under 16—I am sorry, under 65. Having taken the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, to task for getting her figures wrong, I am beginning to feel a little less confident. I shall say it again; it is inconceivable that the board would be all white, heterosexual males under 65. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), let me say that not only must there be black and Asian commissioners, but that that there will be black and Asian commissioners, and there will be women commissioners. When the hon. Member for Epping Forest moved amendments in Committee suggesting that there should be at least one such commissioner, I was appalled that we would be thinking of one woman or one black person being considered to be representative.

Roger Berry: Will my hon. Friend explain why reference in the Bill to the composition of the board refers to disability alone?

Meg Munn: My hon. Friends are impatient. I will get there, I promise.

Keith Vaz: Before the Minister gets there, I must say that she has listened to what we have been saying, and she has changed her "hope" to "will" and "must". That is because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making the appointments, presumably seeking the advice of the equality Minister. When the Secretary of State makes those decisions to ensure that the "will" and the "must" is better than the hope, will account be taken of the numbers that have been mentioned in the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry)? In other words, half of the committee should be women and a quarter should be black or Asian, at least.

Meg Munn: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to give due regard to a range of views.
	We are talking about a commission that deals with discrimination. We will not be looking to replicate how our society is. Precisely those people who experience discrimination should be given representation in greater numbers than they would be in a body that reflected society in general. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that we want to ensure that that is the case. If we did not do that, the commission would neither command the confidence of communities nor champion equality with credibility among employers and service providers.
	The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, and the complete range of amendments—Nos. 1 to 10—seek to establish a statutory race committee. I thank those who have raised that important issue. The amendments respond to the strong concerns of some black and minority ethnic communities. Like my hon. Friend, I, too, believe that if the new commission cannot effectively tackle racism, it cannot demonstrate real progress in improving race equality in Britain, and it will have failed.
	In setting out the Government's view it is important to understand the process that led to the Bill. The responses to the consultation on the White Paper in 2004 overwhelmingly supported an integrated body, not a federal structure of separate interests. Many pointed out that a federal structure would risk the new commission being blighted by inertia and infighting. Equality is not a minority issue, but an issue for us all. I am encouraged by the strong support for a unified and integrated approach to these issues.
	We talk about six strands and about human rights, but there are groups of people who genuinely feel that because they are a minority concern—whether it is transgender, transsexual or those with a learning disability—their voices are never heard. The commission will have to hear all those voices. Black and minority ethnic groups have lobbied strongly for a race committee to be set out in the Bill and for there to be a designated race commissioner, as that would guarantee for them that their concerns would be considered by the new body. However, had that been placed in the Bill, other strands would also have sought to have a committee to represent their interests and we would be setting up a federated structure—an approach that we had specifically rejected for good reasons and that would go against the overwhelming consensus for an integrated approach. The CRE, until very recently, accepted that there was no need to have a race committee in the Bill.
	I come to why we have made provision in the Bill for a disability committee. I refer to what I said at the outset in taking forward existing powers and duties. In working with the existing commissions, we agreed that there should be no regression from their existing arrangements. There is no requirement that the CRE must support black commissioners or a quota of black or Asian commissioners. The Disability Rights Commission requires that disabled people be appointed to the commission.
	We have taken equal care to avoid regression in the race area in terms of our commitment to continue funding for the race equality councils, giving priority to race and faith in the new commission's good relations remit and carrying forward the CRE's powers in full. All the commissions will have a transitional commissioner to ensure that the experience and priorities of the existing commissions are adequately reflected in the new arrangements.
	I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the disabilities committee. It has a sunset clause so that as the transition takes place and it, too, moves into place, consideration can be given to whether that process needs to continue.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend argues that the arrangements that she proposes for the commission do not represent a regression from the current situation relating to the CRE. It is true that there is nothing in legislation that insists that the CRE must have a majority of black and minority ethnic commissioners or even black and minority ethnic staff. It would have been absurd, when the CRE was set up, to assume anything other than that black and Asian people would play a prominent leadership role. If my hon. Friend sets up the new commission and it goes forward without any guarantees, whatever she says about the legislative position in relation to stability it will, in practice, represent a serious regression from the current status quo with the CRE.

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend makes my argument, just as it would be if she had said that there would have been absurdity in relation to the CRE. I have said that it would be inconceivable in relation to the commission.

Keith Vaz: The Minister keeps saying "inconceivable". That means that it may happen. Even if there is a 1 per cent. chance of it happening, it may happen. I do not have an Oxford dictionary in the Chamber, but it may happen. If it happens, will my hon. Friend bring forward legislation to ensure that the race committee can and will be established? If she gives me that assurance—not only in terms of race but for the other strands if they ask for it—and the commission does not set things up, which she has given it the powers to do, will she reflect and bring forward legislation under the Act to ensure that that happens? That is the only assurance that I seek.

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend is getting into great difficulties about what "inconceivable" is. I will give further guarantees and I have further expectations. The fundamental reassurance and guarantee for the commission is that it must command the confidence of the communities that look to it for guarantees around discrimination and equality. There is a range of measures in place for that to happen. I will go through the rest of my speech, during which I shall respond to these issues. I shall be happy to give way subsequently if hon. Members feel that they need further clarification.
	I was talking about the transitional commissioners. They will be a guarantee of taking forward the work that is being done. We have also provided the commission with the powers to do all the things that the amendment seeks. The commission can set up committees with delegated powers, it can ring-fence resources and it can determine the criteria for appointments to the committees. I expect some committees to cut across strands. We wanted to establish a unified commission so that issues that cut across existing strands can be properly addressed. However, I have no doubt that the commission will establish a committee that will take forward those priorities on race relations, and I strongly encourage it to do so at an early stage. It is simply not possible for it to ignore the priorities and concerns of black and minority ethnic communities, because they, along with others, will be the authors and architects of the commission's strategic plan. That is why we have placed the commission under a new duty to consult on its strategic plan in clause 5, and to consult on its "state of the nation" report in clause 12.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) raised economic issues, and rightly mentioned the review of equality issues chaired by Trevor Phillips that will look at some of those issues. It is part of the Government's programme to develop the equality debate and to look at what we need to do in the 21st century. The review chaired by Trevor Phillips will therefore have a significant influence on the commission's work programme.

John McDonnell: As powers will be given to the new body to establish the committees, the Minister may wish to express the view that if the Government are not satisfied with the new committee structure it may warrant further Government intervention.

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We want to set up a body that is independent of Government. Indeed, there was a great deal of debate in the other place about the extent of its independence. Part of the commission's role is to comment on what the Government are doing, so we need to limit Government interference. A number of amendments were tabled to make the commission more independent.

Keith Vaz: Following the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the Minister has moved forward and has used the word "impossible". She believes that it is impossible, once the new body has been set up, to fail to establish committees. In response to my hon. Friend's question, she talked about Government intervention, so if the commission does not set up committees will she introduce legislation to make sure that its structure reflects the united views of the House? The hon. Members for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) both support the principle of the amendments, but they will leave the practicalities to the new body. If the commission does not deal with such matters itself, will she take action to make sure that it does?

Meg Munn: Powers are available to the commission to do so, and I have made my expectations clear. It is therefore not wise to move straight on to talk about new legislation or intervention. I have made strong commitments and there are strong expectations on the issue. I have more commitments to make which, I hope, will provide further guarantees.

Dawn Butler: The Minister talked about a review headed by Trevor Phillips. Can she give the House an assurance that prominent black and Asian minority ethnic communities and groups that work on race equality issues such as the Greater London authority, the 1990 Trust and Operation Black Vote, to name but a few, will be consulted?

Meg Munn: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, I have met the majority of groups that she named and I pay tribute to their work. I shall come to that point later.
	The Government are committed to ensuring that race equality concerns will be central to the commission's work. We have considered the issue carefully and provided a number of measures in the Bill to ensure that that is the case. We have given the commission new powers to address hate crimes and prejudice against groups in society. We have given it new powers to assess and enforce compliance with the public sector race duty. We have made a commitment to the continued funding of race equality councils and of others involved in local race equality work to ensure that those important initiatives continue to flourish. I will follow up recent discussions with the British Federation of Race Equality Councils to ensure that that is the case. Representatives told me they were reassured by our plans. They are doing important work and have made a commitment to work with us as we move towards the establishment of the commission for equality and human rights.
	We should not forget that the commission, because of its cross-cutting remit, is better able to address the concerns of all black and minority ethnic groups in our society—young people, children, women, lesbians, gay men, disabled people and older people. Children have not been raised specifically today, but they are one of hon. Members' concerns. Children are people and they have human rights, just like everyone else. The commission will play a key role in promoting understanding and respect for children's human rights. I have every confidence that the new commission will be able to do as much, if not more than our existing arrangements. The commission will not be tackling equality in an ethereal way—it will respond to the different and specific needs of various groups of people. We believe in equality but, as has been said, equality is not about treating everyone the same, but about responding to their specific concerns. I hope that what I have said will give assurance and confidence to hon. Members who are concerned about these issues, although I accept that words are not always enough.

Keith Vaz: Will the Minister allow to me to intervene? She sounds as though she is about to embark on her peroration, and I would hate her to finish—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way? I cannot allow two hon. Members to be on their feet at the same time.

Meg Munn: I am not coming to the end of my speech, despite what hon. Members think, although I am getting closer. If my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East would bear with me for a few minutes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to reassure her hon. Friend that it is the end of the beginning.

Meg Munn: I think that it is the beginning of the end, but it is not the end. Indeed, I was about to say that today is not the end of the process—far from it. We have three years to prepare the ground for the transfer of race functions from the CRE to the new commission. Let me assure hon. Members that I do not intend to speak for that long. We now need further and stronger engagement with black and minority ethnic communities, including the CRE, to undertake the work necessary to prepare the ground. I have met and spoken to many people, some of whom believe strongly that the measures that my hon. Friends have proposed should be included the Bill. I am nevertheless grateful that they have committed themselves to continue this work and that they have reiterated their support for the overall vision of the new commission. I am personally committed, together with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), immediately to initiate a work stream that will directly involve members of the black and minority ethnic communities and others. That will explore how, for example, the race equality and good relations functions of the new commission could be framed, including its important focus on race and faith communities. The work, which we have asked our officials to begin scoping, will consider how the new commission can engage communities in identifying the strategic priorities for its work on race equality, and how its governance and committee structures can be configured to deliver that. The recent discussions with the British Federation of Race Equality Councils, to which I have referred, are a good starting point.
	There have been calls for a separate commission to respond to concerns about integration and citizenship. The Government believe that those issues are for the commission for equality and human rights, but we strongly agree that they cannot be left solely to the commission. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published a combined equality and   cohesion strategy last January, "Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society", on which we shall make a progress report. He will also make an announcement after consultation in the autumn about integration and the possible role of a time-limited commission.

Keith Vaz: The Minister has moved a long way on representation today. Let us be clear about the race committee: she not only hopes that it will happen, but wants it to happen, so if it does not happen—she thinks it impossible that it will not happen—she will make sure that the Government's views are brought to the attention of the commission, even though it will be independent, and if necessary she will return to the House to seek ways to make sure that it happens. Am I almost right?

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend is almost right. I do not want to go as far as him, because my confidence that the commission will take the race committee seriously is so great that I cannot see the need to return to the House.

Keith Vaz: On that basis, I will not press my amendment to a vote this evening.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for making that clear. I understand the concern that the issue has raised among black and Asian communities, and I am sensitive to the need to take the matter forward in a way that encourages their involvement and also their confidence that the new body will deliver.

Diane Abbott: The black and Asian communities will be pleased that the Minister appears to have moved towards our position tonight—we have listened to her remarks carefully and will study them in Hansard. However, she should be assured that although some hon. Members will move on as the issue unfolds, others will not move on and will return to the Floor of the House again and again until we have a commission that represents a genuine step forward for all the equality strands within it.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. What is encouraging about this process is that the number of people who are not only interested in but committed to ensuring that we advance issues of equality is much greater than some years ago.

Keith Vaz: I apologise for intervening again, but the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler) is important. Will the Minister convene a meeting between the CRE, the 1990 Trust, the Greater London authority and Operation Black Vote as soon as possible to make sure that everyone has a stake in ensuring that those commitments are carried through?

Meg Munn: I am happy to convene such a meeting.
	The position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on London is slightly different from mine. The involvement of people throughout Britain is important, and I want to see how we can involve black and minority ethnic groups throughout the whole of Britain. The board will decide the way forward, once it is appointed towards the end of year, but we are already preparing the options for it to consider. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of London in amendments Nos. 25 and 26. Despite the fact that I am Yorkshire born and bred, I share his pride in what our capital, which has one of the most diverse populations of any capital city, has to offer. However, I disagree with him about a statutory committee, which would be neither necessary nor wise.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that discrimination is not location specific, but in many respects the commission's functions will be location specific. The site will be split between Manchester and London, but I emphasise that further work remains to be done. We need to consider what are the appropriate functions to be located in Manchester and in London. None of us, however proud we are of our own part of the country, would argue that the lobbying of Parliament and regular contact with decision making needs to be based in London. We do not have in mind specific splits in terms of numbers. This will be part of a longer process to determine the appropriate functions. Our work on location identified that many of the functions undertaken are not location-specific, particularly now that most people use the phone to contact organisations. There are many ways in which we can make the commission accessible without having to have it on people's doorsteps.
	I should emphasise that there will be offices in Scotland and Wales as well as in Manchester and London, and regional arrangements across England. I want the commission to reach into every community. It will have regional arrangements that are beyond those for the current commissions, although further work is required to determine how that is to be done. Nothing in the Bill prevents the new commission from establishing a committee for London. Indeed, the London region will want to consider how it responds to the challenge of the regional structure. I do not, however, agree that such a committee should be set out in statute. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead will withdraw his amendment and that the people of the south and the north of England can once again become good friends.

Harry Cohen: The Minister's comments about the further work that is required are very helpful. I hope that she will emphasise the need to be effective as regards the lobbying of Ministers and key policy decision makers. On that basis, I am happy not to press my amendment.

Meg Munn: I am pleased to make my hon. Friend happy.
	Amendment No. 42 would ensure that a financial statement prepared by the commission is sent to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee as well as to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Secretary of State, for which the Bill already provides. The Bill requires the commission to provide an annual financial statement and send it to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is required to examine, certify and report on the commission's financial statement and to lay a copy of the statement and his report before Parliament. Each year, the Public Accounts Committee undertakes several inquiries and investigations, often drawing on those reports. The relationship between the Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General is close and co-operative.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs.   Laing) will understand why the amendment, while well intentioned, is unnecessary. The Bill has sufficient safeguards, as there are with non-departmental public bodies generally, to ensure rigorous scrutiny, accountability and transparency.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister's assurances and I will not press my amendment. I look forward to the publication of the first year's accounts.

Meg Munn: On that note, I conclude my contribution to this part of the debate.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21
	 — 
	Unlawful act notice

Meg Munn: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 12, line 1, leave out '24(1)(a).' and insert '24(1).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the motion that clause 28 be transferred to the end of line 20 on page 28 and Government amendments Nos. 12, 15 and 14.

Meg Munn: Amendment No. 11, like most of this group, is minor and technical. It corrects an anomaly in referencing in the Bill. Our intention is to oblige the commission for equality and human rights to inform the recipient of an unlawful act notice of the effect of the commission's clause 24 power, which enables it to apply to a court for an injunction in England and Wales or an interdict in Scotland to prevent discrimination. As drafted, the commission's obligation is restricted to informing the recipient of an unlawful act notice of its power to apply for an injunction in England and Wales, but not Scotland. That is not our intention. Amendment No. 11 therefore extends the obligation on the commission to include a reference to its power to apply for an interdict in Scotland.
	The motion to transfer clause 28 is also a minor and technical matter. It does not alter the content or effect of the clause but moves it to the end of part 1. Clause 28 gives powers to the Disability Rights Commission for matters concerning rented accommodation in Scotland in the period before the new commission is operational. It is therefore more appropriate for it to be located at the end of part 1 under the "Miscellaneous" heading than with clauses that confer enforcement powers on the commission for equality and human rights.
	More important, in its current position, the commencement of the clause would, because of clause 42, end the transitional period that precedes the new commission taking on its powers in October 2007. Unlike the other clauses, the commencement of which ends the transition period, clause 28 does not confer any powers or duties on the CEHR.
	The substance of the Disability Rights Commission's equivalent powers for rented accommodation in England and Wales, which were conferred by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, will come into force on 4 December 2006. As explained in Committee when the amendments were tabled, we are working closely with the Scottish Executive to ensure that the DRC's powers in relation to Scotland come into effect on the same day as in England and Wales. The transition strategy for the commission has been planned to allow time to ensure that the most suitable candidates are appointed to the board. Ending the transitional period prematurely by leaving the clause in its current location would seriously jeopardise an effective transition. It is therefore necessary for the clause to be moved as proposed.
	Amendment No. 12 is also a minor technical amendment, which, I hope is self-explanatory. It simply corrects the grammar of clause 46(3)(b). It makes no change to the effect of that paragraph.
	Amendment No. 15 is a more substantive amendment, responding to concerns raised earlier as well as in the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) tabled amendments to modify the exemption for schools of a religious character from the discrimination provisions. I promised to consider his arguments, which appeared to have some substance, and the amendment is the result. The Government are committed to maintaining the status quo as far as the right of faith schools to operate as such is concerned, and that necessarily means that they must be free to discriminate on the ground of religion to the extent necessary to make that a reality. In view of that need, faith schools are currently exempted entirely from the provisions specific to educational establishments.
	We remain convinced that faith schools must be exempt on admissions and on provision to pupils of access to any benefits, facilities or services. In common with other schools, they are also exempt regarding the curriculum and acts of worship or religious observance organised by or on behalf of the school. However, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon argued that making it lawful for faith schools to exclude a pupil or subject a pupil to any other detriment on the ground of religion or belief goes beyond what is needed to protect their position. We have given the matter much consideration since Committee and officials have been in discussion with the Anglican and Catholic Churches.
	Exclusion from school is a serious matter that neither the Government nor schools take lightly. Existing guidance for schools sets out that a pupil's behaviour must be the only factor to consider in matters of exclusion. It therefore would not be right for faith schools to exclude an existing pupil purely on the ground of religion or belief. I do not believe they would wish to do that but it would be wrong to give the impression in the Bill that the Government are in two minds about the matter. We therefore propose to remove that exclusion.
	Detriment is a wide concept that is loosely defined in law. We have been trying to identify any actions that constitute direct or indirect discrimination, falling within that term, that faith schools would wish to take, that they would be justified in taking and that would not be adequately protected by other exceptions to the measure. So far, we have drawn a blank.
	On the other hand, it is possible to think of unreasonable and unjustifiable actions—and, let me say, highly unlikely ones—that the exception might appear to allow. Hence our conclusion that we should also remove that exception. It is unnecessary and risks giving the wrong impression. Let me make it clear that nothing about the amendment is intended to suggest that we believe that faith schools are likely in practice to discriminate against children of other faiths or of none. In the absence until now of legislation on such matters, I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. The amendment simply recognises that exceptions to discrimination law must be tightly drawn.
	During the passage of the Bill, the education exemptions, especially those regarding faith schools, have been the subject of much consideration and debate, not to mention a raft of amendments. That has demonstrated the depth of feeling, the importance and necessity of exemptions and the need to strike the right balance between the protection of pupils and the needs of schools. We have listened to and carefully considered views from both sides of the debate and believe that we have now struck the right balance. However, the Bill contains regulatory powers to alter, add or remove any education exemptions. We believe that those powers are crucial, since if, in practice, there is evidence that the exemptions for schools are not working as we intend, the necessary changes can be made, following full consultation with all key stakeholders.

Evan Harris: I thank the Minister and her colleagues for listening to the representations that I and others have made. I would also like to say, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which also made a recommendation on these issues, how pleasing it is that these concerns have been noted. This makes all the scrutiny work of the Committee appear worth while. In the spirit of what the Minister said, I ask her to ensure that the discrimination law review consider these issues carefully, because, despite the high level of scrutiny that they have received, we might not have covered everything that might need amending through the regulatory powers in the Bill.

Meg Munn: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that commitment and also to say that the discrimination law review will provide further opportunity for consultation on a wide range of issues. I am sure that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as other scrutiny processes and Select Committees, will want to consider how the measures will affect the areas that they cover.
	Government amendment No. 14 has been tabled in response to issues raised in Committee. The amendment amends the definition of discrimination in regulation 3 of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 to make it clear that religious discrimination in the area of employment and vocational training is unlawful, even when committed against a person of the same religion as the discriminator. That is the intention, and we believe the effect, of this regulation as it stands, but the amendment resolves any doubt on the matter.
	We made a similar amendment, in the other place, to what is now clause 45. Having considered the case made in Committee that this now leaves an apparent inconsistency between the Bill, as amended by the Government in the other place, and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, we have concluded that a similar clarification to those regulations would be helpful.

Evan Harris: I would like to say how grateful I am that the Minister has responded to the concerns that I raised in Committee about that inconsistency, although I share her view that the meat of the matter was dealt with by my noble Friend Lord Lester in the significant amendment that was made in the other place. However, I am grateful to the Minister once again.

Meg Munn: It is pleasing to make so many people happy. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.

Dominic Grieve: Amendment No. 12 makes the reading of that particular provision much easier. Given that we debated the matter at some length in Committee, it is curious how the changing of one word can turn a concept that is rather difficult to understand into precisely the concept that the Minister was trying to put forward to me in the letter sent to me.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That clause 28 be transferred to the end of line 20 on page 28.—[Meg Munn.]

Clause 29
	 — 
	Legal assistance

John McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 18, line 44, leave out from 'Commission' to end of line 45 and insert
	'shall consider any application for assistance from an individual and may provide assistance if—'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 22, in page 19, line 22, at end insert—
	'(ab)   case work aid;'.
	No. 44, in page 19, line 25, after 'assistance', insert
	'including, but not limited to, meeting the costs of any other party to any legal proceedings in the event that the individual assisted is not successful in his claim'.

John McDonnell: I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which deal with legal assistance and casework. Amendment No. 21 deals with legal assistance. At present, the Bill states:
	"The Commission may assist an individual who is or may become party to legal proceedings if—".
	It then lists various caveats in regard to that. My amendment would change the wording to provide that the commission
	"shall consider any application for assistance from an individual and provide assistance if—".
	I take the view that it would be wrong and short-sighted for the new commission not to have a duty at least to consider all applications for legal assistance that come before it. The existing commissions have that duty, and its omission in regard to the new body amounts to a breach of the no regression principle established by the Government. There is no requirement to provide legal representation in all cases; it is a discretionary power that is exercised in a limited number of strategically important cases. This is a fundamental principle of access to justice and its omission from the Bill effectively removes the right of a victim of discrimination to apply for assistance and to be assured that their application will be considered by the new body.
	In amendment No. 22, I want to insert casework into the operation of the new body because casework has been an important part of the role of the existing bodies, and yet at least one of them, at the end of last year, abolished its casework unit, citing the fact that it did not expect casework to continue under the new body.
	People can receive three different types of support from the existing commissions: legal support, which means full legal support and financial assistance; casework, which is largely a hand-holding exercise providing support and advice to people in vulnerable situations to develop their case; and information in the form of paper briefings. A commitment is needed that casework will continue under the new body. It is feared that a few will be offered legal support in high-profile cases while the rest simply receive a briefing pack after having phoned an outsourced call centre helpline.
	The existing staff of all the bodies and, I believe, the existing commissioners value casework highly. It is the majority of their work and leads to many small wins—not the high-profile cases with legal support that receive the most publicity—that have a real effect on people's lives. People will be better represented if the casework continues, and I seek the Minister's assurance that it will be an element of the continuing work under the new body.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for tabling his amendments. As hon. Members might be aware, the other place had an extensive debate on the issues raised, but I am pleased to make the case here.
	On amendment No. 21, we have said consistently throughout consideration of this Bill that it is not our intention that the new commission will provide legal assistance for every meritorious case. It will simply not have the resources to do so, any more than the current commissions can support every case, as they do not have the necessary resources that that would entail. We have said consistently that it is our intention that the new commission will use its enforcement powers in an effective and strategic way. That applies equally to its power to assist individuals in bringing proceedings before a court or tribunal. We cannot see the case for placing an express obligation on the commission to consider every application. In practice, it will need to consider all applications if it is to identify which, if any, it wishes to support. As a public body, the commission has an implicit obligation not to act unreasonably, and could be challenged if it ignored applications that it received.
	Amendment No. 22 seeks to add casework to the list of legal assistance that the commission can provide alongside what is already listed—legal advice, legal representation, facilities for the settlement of a dispute and any other form of assistance. Our view is that that amendment is also unnecessary, as the commission for equality and human rights will be able to provide casework advice under the powers contained in clauses 13 and 29. Clause 13 will allow the commission to provide general advice and guidance on matters that are not the subject of legal proceedings. Where legal proceedings are envisaged, casework advice is included within the reference to legal advice and representation in clause 29. Specifying casework separately would cast doubt on whether the references to advice and guidance and legal advice and representation cover casework and imply that it is something different, which it is not.
	Amendment No. 44 would permit the commission to meet the costs of the other party in the event that an individual that it was supporting lost the case before a court or tribunal. At this stage, I should make it clear that the commission may meet any costs awarded by a court or tribunal against an individual that it was supporting. This is the case with the current commissions and will be so for the new commission. However, the amendment seeks to go further than securing that position. It would create a power for the new commission to meet the costs of the other party even where no costs had been awarded by the court or tribunal.
	Hon. Members will doubtless be aware of the concern expressed in the other place about small firms and charities being treated unfairly or oppressively when the commission uses its enforcement powers. There was extensive debate in the other place on that matter and I am grateful for the opportunity to set out our thinking on how the new commission will engage.
	First, we do not have to fear unreasonable or oppressive action by the commission. The commission will work primarily through promoting good practice, helping bodies comply with the law and fostering constructive links with a wide range of bodies, including small businesses and charities. The commission will need to be sensitive to the concerns of its stakeholders. If it fails to do so, it will lose authority and public support. It will, of course, need to consult on its strategic plan, which will include its legal and regulatory strategy. I hope that that alone should provide reassurance against the commission taking an arbitrary or unreasonable approach. However, I recognise that it is possible that a small organisation could find itself defending an action brought with the commission's support, but there are checks and balances that ensure that a body in this situation is not disadvantaged. Most legal proceedings on discrimination are brought in employment tribunals. Employment tribunals are specifically designed to have straightforward procedures that make formal representation unnecessary.
	I am not persuaded that we should give the commission the power to meet the costs of the other side in such circumstances. The commission will use its power to support individual litigants in proceedings that it believes will have a strategic effect. It would be inappropriate for the commission to then meet the costs of the other party. I do recognise the concerns, but there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent this situation from occurring.

John McDonnell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31
	 — 
	Judicial Review and other legal proceedings

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 14, at end insert—
	'(2A)   A person established by an Act of the Scottish Parliament and whose principal duties relate to human rights and are similar to any of the Commission's duties under section 9 shall be taken to have title and interest in relation to the subject matter of any legal proceedings in Scotland which it has capacity to institute, or in which it has capacity to intervene by virtue of subsection (1).'.
	The amendment is about legal matters in Scotland. I am not a lawyer and I am not Scottish, so I shall speak briefly and hope that the Minister can let me know whether there is a concern. I will probably find myself forced to accept what she says.
	The powers in the clause were amended in the House of Lords following an amendment tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lester. This was responded to by the Government at a later stage by effectively disapplying parts of section 7 of the Human Rights Act. However, it is not clear that the provision would allow a Scottish commissioner to have the same powers without this change in statute in UK law.
	Elsewhere in the Bill, we have made provision for the Scottish Parliament, if it decides to have a human rights commissioner, to have similar powers. Therefore, I seek to probe whether there has been an omission in the drafting. I fear that the amendment may not be quite right, which I regret, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained whether the change was necessary or whether we would need further primary legislation if the Scottish Parliament chose to go down this path, the idea being that we should not stop it doing so.

Meg Munn: The legal effect of this amendment is highly ambiguous and for that reason alone the Government must oppose it. In particular, the reference to clause 31(1) does not work. If the purpose is to override the victim test in section 7 of the Human Rights Act, we do not think the amendment is clear enough to achieve it. However, it is clear that the amendment is intended to deal with a matter—namely, the powers of a person established by Act of the Scottish Parliament—that falls within the area of devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore not a matter on which this House can properly legislate without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
	If and when a Scottish commissioner for human rights is established by Act of the Scottish Parliament, it will be possible to consider whether any further provisions need to be made in relation to reserved legislation to give the commissioner the powers that he or she needs to carry out their duties. If so, the appropriate way to deliver the objective would be by way of an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998. Such an order would be taken forward by agreement between the Government and the Scottish Executive, and would be subject to scrutiny here in Parliament.
	The Bill to create the post of commissioner is still only in its early stages of scrutiny at Holyrood. It is simply premature for us to be second-guessing the debate that will take place there about the powers of the proposed commissioner. I trust that the hon. Gentleman has been reassured.

Evan Harris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45
	 — 
	Discrimination

Dominic Grieve: In light of the lead amendment in this group, amendment No. 19, not being moved, I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 29, line 23, leave out 'not in good faith.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in clause 46, page 30, line 13, leave out 'reasonably.'.
	No. 32, in clause 52, page 35, line 44, at end insert—
	'(   )   action in relation to the holding of acts of worship or other religious observance by or on behalf of the public authority.'.
	No. 34, in clause 57, page 39, line 3, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	'(b)   in order to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions or beliefs of a significant number of persons of the religion or belief to which the organisation relates.'.
	No. 35, in clause 59, page 39, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	'(b)   in order to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions or beliefs of a significant number of persons of the religion or belief to which the institution relates.'.
	No. 39, in clause 60, page 40, line 2, after 'charity', insert
	'with an ethos based on religion or belief.'.
	No. 40, in clause 60, page 40, line 11, at end add—
	'(c)   it can demonstrate that it has an ethos based on religion or belief.'.

Dominic Grieve: Given the amount of time left, this intervention will be exceptionally brief, but I have waited long enough for it. In Committee, we considered at great length the issues surrounding discrimination on the ground of religion. I continue to have some concerns about two areas. First, clause 45 provides that one may discriminate against somebody who is bringing an allegation against one only if one is satisfied that that allegation is not being brought in good faith, as well as being false. That is an almost insurmountable test. Of course it may be—
	It being Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [21 November 2005].
	Amendment negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 46
	 — 
	Goods, facilities and services

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 30, line 14, leave out 'to refuse' and insert 'refusing'.—[Meg Munn.]

Clause 50
	 — 
	Section 49: exceptions

Amendment made: No. 15, in, page 32, line 16, leave out '49(1)' and insert
	'49(1)(a), (b) and (c)(i) and (ii)'.—[Meg Munn.]

Clause 77
	 — 
	Employment equality regulations

Amendment made: No. 14, in clause 77, page 46, line 27, at end add—
	'(2)   For regulation 3(1)(a) of the Regulations substitute—
	"(a)   on the grounds of the religion or belief of B or of any other person except A (whether or not it is also A's religion or belief) A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons;"
	(3)   Omit regulation 3(2) of the Regulations."'.—[Meg Munn.]

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel obliged to hope that you might point out to those in charge of the business of this House that it has become clear that the time available for considering the Bill on Report has been insufficient. No one has suggested during today's proceedings that there has been any delay or filibustering, but having concluded consideration on Report, there are one or two outstanding matters that ought to have been considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not something on which the Chair can adjudicate, but his words are on the record and will no doubt be noticed.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Third time.
	All parts of this House and the other place have adopted a positive and constructive approach to the Bill; for that, I express my gratitude. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality, who made her debut at the Dispatch Box, to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), and to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disability for their expert steering of the Bill through its parliamentary passage.
	Nye Bevan said that his political motivation was to achieve serenity in people's lives. Many in this House will have direct experience of how homophobia, racism and discrimination can destroy lives, poison communities and weaken not just our society, but our economy. The Bill has at its heart the removal of fear. It will promote equality, tackle discrimination and widen opportunity. It is underpinned by our shared values of fairness, freedom and solidarity.
	The Bill is not the end of the journey; it is a vital step on that journey. As we move forward, we will engage properly with all who have an interest in it—inside and outside of this House. The first part of the Bill creates the new commission for equality and human rights, which will play a crucial role in joining up the attack on discrimination. For the first time, it will tackle issues such as ageism and homophobia, and extend support to minority groups such as transsexual people.
	Once the Bill is enacted, we will move swiftly to recruiting and appointing the new commissioners and their staff. We will ensure that the commissioners are the right people for the work, and that they have personal experience of the issues that they are dealing with. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality said, it would be inconceivable—for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I should point out that the Oxford English dictionary definition of "inconceivable" is "cannot be imagined; unbelievable"—to have a commission with, for instance, no black or minority ethnic representatives on it.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Alan Johnson: No.
	The commission will assume its powers and functions in October 2007, with race folding in two years later. The debate on Report highlighted the need for the new commission to make a strong contribution to racial equality—a point that Trevor Phillips made when I met him in November. We have listened carefully to the points raised and will put in place the work needed to ensure that they are addressed.

Helen Goodman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alan Johnson: No, I will not.
	Clause 10 emphasises in law the priority of ensuring good community relations and highlights race and faith in particular. The CRE will remain in existence until 2009. This will enable it to play a full role in discussions about how the commission works. The passing of the Bill does not determine how the commission will run, but it is the start of a new conversation and process in which black and minority ethnic communities will be fully involved. We are committed to an orderly transfer of the race agenda and, in co-operation with the Home Office, we will immediately initiate a work stream that will directly involve members of the black and minority ethnic community and others, in exploring how, for example, the race equality and good relations functions of the new commission could be framed, including its important focus on race and faith communities. In this way, we will strive to make sure that race and faith communities have full confidence in the new commission and that the commission's governance structures and strategic plan are designed in a way that reflects their concerns.
	Part 2 of the Bill introduces a new protection against discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services and in other areas on the grounds of religion or belief. After concerns were expressed during the Bill's passage, we brought in additional powers to extend that to sexual orientation. We will issue a consultation document on that shortly and plan to exercise the power by October, at the same time as on religion and belief.
	Going forward, we are committed to tackling similar discrimination in other areas, including on the grounds of age and transgender. Those issues will be tackled as part of the discrimination law review, which will lead to a single equality Bill in the life of this Parliament and will simplify 30 years of equality legislation, ironing out many of the anomalies that we know exist. We will issue a Green Paper on the review's findings before the summer, which will ensure that we can also give full consideration to emerging findings from Trevor Phillips's review into the fundamental causes of inequality.
	The fourth part of the Bill places a duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity between men and women. We are currently completing consultation on that and hope to bring forward regulations in April next year.
	The Bill is about replacing privilege with opportunity, discrimination with equality, and fear with serenity. Those are noble ambitions, which I know Members on both sides of the House support. I commend the Bill to the House.

Eleanor Laing: For once, I can say yes to the Secretary of State. He hopes that we will all support the Bill. He commends it to the House, and so do I. We have supported it from the beginning, and indeed since before the general election. I support it because its main cause is freedom—the freedom of every individual in our society to live their life as they choose or, indeed, as they have to, for it is not always a matter of choice, regardless of their circumstances, whatever they may be.
	Throughout the Bill's passage, we have spoken about the six strands of equality. It is not, in fact, about just six strands. The principle of the Bill is an integrated approach against discrimination for any reason, and not just for the six strands we refer to technically. It is therefore essential that the new commission should command confidence. I hope that the cross-party support that the Bill has received this evening and throughout its passage will give the project a good start. I look forward to the outcome of the equality review, to which the Secretary of State referred, and to our taking the whole matter of achieving further equality another step forward at some time in future.
	I pay tribute to all the bodies that have been involved for a long time in the preparation of the Bill and in discussion of its content. Those bodies include statutory bodies, pressure groups and charities, which have contributed over a long period to our debates. Their knowledge and experience have been brought to bear on the Bill through Members of this House and of the other place and that is why we have had such constructive and informed debates. I hope that everyone who has urged the introduction of this legislation will feel that an enormous step forward has been taken when we give this Bill its Third Reading this evening.
	At the end of a long process, I also wish to pay tribute to several people, including the many Ministers involved in the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to the Minister for Women and Equality, who has been reasonable and polite and displayed considerable forbearance during the consideration of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the passionate Back Benchers on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate and to the Liberal Democrat and other party spokesmen, who have been amazingly constructive. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has contributed considerably to the Bill, but has not been able to give us the benefit of his wise arguments this evening, except for some 50 seconds a short time ago. The debate this evening has been the poorer—

John Bercow: We have been short-changed.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend is right and I hope that we will hear more from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield at some other time.
	I also wish to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who has been committed to this issue for many years, and my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who served on the Committee. I also pay tribute to all the officials who have worked so hard on the Bill. They are often forgotten.
	I must place on the record the fact that I remain concerned about four areas. I hope that my fears will be proved wrong, but I am still worried about, first, unnecessary bureaucracy. I hope that that will be avoided. Secondly, I am concerned about extra burdens on small businesses, which must not be allowed, because that would undermine employment and the economy. Thirdly, I am also concerned about the risk of excessive and dogmatic adherence to political correctness. It has not happened during the passage of the Bill and I hope that it does not happen when the Bill becomes law. Fourthly, I remain, of course, concerned about costs. However, I have said enough about taxpayers this evening and I do not need to repeat my arguments.
	I hope that my fears are not realised. We all want these measures to succeed. I do not believe that it is possible to achieve equality, because every individual is unique. I was brought up to believe that "You should do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is what this Bill is about and I give it our unqualified support.

Diane Abbott: I welcome the principle of a unified commission and I congratulate Ministers on introducing this important legislation. I also wish to congratulate those groups in the black and minority ethnic communities—Operation Black Vote, the 1990 Trust and the race advisers to the Mayor of London—who have worked so hard to put race on the agenda in the context of these debates.
	On Second Reading, there was little discussion about race, and this evening we have managed to put that right. I welcome the unified commission in principle, and I think that the Bill—and the thinking behind it—represents an advance for all our communities. However, I remain concerned about the position of issues of race in the new commission, the finances available for work on race in the new commission, the law enforcement work of the new commission and, perhaps above all, the support that will be available for local race equality councils. As I said on Report, some of the most valuable work funded by the CRE was carried out by local and regional equalities committees.
	With those caveats, I welcome the Bill. We have listened carefully to what Ministers said about race and we shall follow how things unfold as we build the new commission, but it would be a mistake for Ministers to believe that the debate about race and the commission is over: for my hon. Friends and I, that debate, and the debate on how the commission does not simply do what the CRE did but improves on it, has only just begun.

Evan Harris: My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) wanted to be here, but has been called away to another engagement. She has asked me to pass on her thanks to those who have worked on the Bill. She subscribes to the views that I am about to set out.
	The Bill is a liberal one; the capital L could apply to the Equality Bill introduced in the House of Lords by my colleague, Lord Lester. I understand that the Government will try to bring it forward soon, but that is a debate for another day. The Bill is liberal because it provides for a mechanism whereby the human rights of individuals can be if not guaranteed, at least looked after and promoted by the commission. It is also liberal, as it attempts to end certain aspects discrimination in a reasonable and balanced way.
	One of the joyous things in the experience of those of us who have worked on the Bill is that we have not heard the negative charges, previously made in the House, that there is an equality industry or a discrimination lobby. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House that we have confined the debate to the issues, without straying into those areas.
	The Government are generally to be commended on the Bill, especially in its present form, as it has been significantly amended in both Houses. The commission to be set up under part 1 is a good structure; it does not include everything that the Liberal Democrats wanted, but it scores well in comparison with the ideal set out in the Paris principles. Government amendments, especially in the House of Lords, have improved the Bill, particularly part 1. It is appropriate to recognise that and to pay tribute to Ministers. The fact that there were no Divisions in the Standing Committee and only one on Report—not on a principle, but on the timing and speed of the promotion of transgender equality and non-discrimination—shows a spirit of collegiality and a shared sense of purpose in bringing the Bill to the statute book.
	Much of the credit must go to the Ministers who steered the Bill through the House. I echo the views of the Secretary of State about the way in which the Minister for Women and Equality handled the complexities of the legislation. It was not straightforward and, as we saw today, sometimes she had to deal with points and concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House, which is never easy. She carried it off commendably.
	The Home Office is stocked with Jekyll and Hyde-type characters. I hope that it does not upset the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), when I say that he is an effective Jekyll; I will not flatter the Hydes by telling him who I think they are. It was certainly a pleasure to work with him, and the fact that the Government were willing to listen and to make changes—albeit not all that we wanted—made it a productive experience.
	As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said, we have benefited from Back-Bench contributions, especially from the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) in Committee and her equivalent—if I do not offend both of them by describing him thus—the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). He was not a member of the Committee but he has always had concerns about these matters and puts them clearly.
	We still have concerns about part 2, but the fact that the House of Lords removed harassment issues from the Bill left a core in part 2 that we could all generally support. As Ministers will know, there are concerns about the existing width of the exemptions under clauses 57, 58 and 59 and, indeed, about whether clause 60 is strictly needed, given that organisations that seek to use a test should have an ethos that requires that test. Nevertheless, the Bill is much better than before, and credit is due to the Government, as well as Opposition parties, for reaching this point.
	It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee with the hon. Members for Epping Forest and, of course, for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), both of whom are forensic yet charming—a rare combination in lawyers, unless someone is paying them a great amount of money.
	Part 3 is a crucial and welcome addition to the Bill, because we all know the problems that people face with discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. However, the fact that pressure needed to be applied to provide part 3 hints at the hierarchy of discrimination and inequalities. We therefore wish good speed to the discrimination law review, to produce a single Equality Bill and then an Act, which will end the debate about hierarchies once and for all. Of course, part 4 is key, because we will not achieve full equality for men and women until public authorities have a positive duty to promote such equality.
	In conclusion, we are still in the early days of the era post the Human Rights Act 1998. A great deal needs to be done to raise public awareness about people's rights and, in particular, about public authorities' duties to ensure that they do not discriminate against people or breach human rights—but we hope that, one day, they will have a duty to promote human rights. It is with great pleasure that I wish the Bill well. I hope that it receives Royal Assent and look forward to its enactment. I hope that the whole country benefits from the measures that will be set out in statute that we have debated these past few weeks and months.

Liz Blackman: I endorse all the compliments that have been given in the Chamber this evening. I served on the Standing Committee and spoke on Second Reading, and it has been a hugely positive process. It was a pleasure to sit and simply listen to the debates prior to Third Reading, and I will keep my remarks extremely brief.
	Like everyone else, I think that creating a single commission is an extremely good move forward, because of all the advantages that a single commission ought to have. We talk about a single, unified body being accessible and coherent, which is a great concept, but we must get it right in practice. So what do we mean by the word "accessible"? We mean that the messages sent from the new body must be extremely clear, and an awful lot of proactive work must be done to inform people about the new commission, especially those who may wish to use it. The word "coherent" means a shared culture, consistent ways of working, shared good practice and an ability to deal with multi-stranded, complex cases. All that is not easy to deliver, and the key to doing so is the appointment of an extremely talented and able chief executive, as well as the commission under that person. I am sure that the Government will pay particular attention to the appointment of the chief executive, because that is critical to the success of the commission.
	I welcome the provisions in the schedules to the Bill that make it necessary for the commission to work towards developing a strategic plan through consultation and preparation. It will be required to set out the activities that it will cover, the timetable that it will use and to set priorities. I also welcome the duty imposed on the commission to review and revise its strategic plan as it moves forward. That is extremely important but, as important, is the link between that process and Parliament and the fact that the strategic plan and its revision will be laid before Parliament. Only through such a transparent process will this accountable body of Parliament have a regular opportunity to scrutinise in detail the work of the commission. If we cannot do that, there is no point in having a commission. It must be made accountable.
	Similarly, all the commission's processes of monitoring the law and the progress made must be examined. Again, there must be a link with Parliament and reports must be laid before us. There is also a connection between the consultation that all those processes demand and the absolute necessity for having the strong regional footprints to which the Minister has referred throughout the debate.
	People who know me know that I have a particular interest in disability issues. I am very pleased with the proposals to integrate more closely the commission's duties and functions in relation to disabled people with its duties and functions in relation to other groups. Nevertheless, the Disability Rights Commission is a very junior member when compared with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I am therefore pleased that disability issues are recognised in statute by the fact they will have their own committee, albeit with a sunset clause, which is right.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke about how difficult it is for people from black and Asian groups to get through the door into employment. May I drew to her attention how very difficult it is for people with disabilities, particular those with mental disabilities, to get through that door let alone access all the other services that we take for granted? When the commission is set up, I shall look at how it makes a difference to the lives of all the people in the various strands or groups, but particularly at the progress that is made for people with disabilities.

Jeremy Hunt: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak after the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). Like me, she has concerns about the impact of the battle against discrimination on people with disabilities. There are fundamental opportunities for the disability agenda, and I wish to direct my comments at that.
	Some hon. Members may have read the story on the BBC website last week about the disabled man who was left stranded at Euston. He had arrived 20 minutes early to catch a Virgin west coast train to Liverpool. He had booked help but, when he arrived at Euston, he was told that no help was available and that station staff were too busy. He called three times before eventually being told by someone from Network Rail that it was just one of those things. Sometimes one misses a train. The person who missed the train happened to be Bert Massie, the head of the DRC, but it is an example of the discrimination and difficulties that disabled people face every day of every week.
	The story illustrates the fundamental role of the DRC. It is not just a body that campaigns for appropriate legislation and for the implementation of that legislation; it is also a body that must highlight abuses of the system and use the power of publicity to highlight the problems. It is vital that that campaigning role is not compromised in the new much larger body, and that is why I very much support the amendments eloquently proposed by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).
	There have been huge advances on the disability agenda in the past 10 years, starting with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was piloted through the House by the shadow Foreign Secretary and former leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The National Disability Council and the Disability Rights Commission were established. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 got rid of discrimination involving access to education, and EU regulations in 2003 ended exemptions for certain categories of employers. Of course, the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 was passed last year. Running through all that legislation has been an understanding that when dealing with discrimination against disabled people, the issues are different from those involved in other types of discrimination.
	There is a need for an element of positive discrimination for disabled people. Most legislation on race, sexuality and gender makes no mention of a specific gender, race or sexuality. We must give people with disabilities proactive help if they are to enjoy the opportunities that the rest of society enjoys. An element of judgment must be applied when implementing disability legislation. We require employers to make "reasonable adjustments" and public authorities must have "due regard" to promoting equality of opportunity. Such judgment is required because significant costs are attached to disability legislation. It is right to spend that money—for example, the rail industry will spend £142 million on upgrading rail carriages between now and 2020—and the costs must be carefully thought through.
	It is not enough for people with disabilities for us simply to eliminate negative attitudes and stereotypes among those who do not have disabilities. We can be as progressive, enlightened and compassionate as we like, but that alone will not solve the problem of the old lady who is stuck in her flat because of her disability. That is why we must realise that different measures are necessary if we are to deal with the problems faced by people with disabilities.
	I welcome the Bill from the perspective of the disability agenda, but I urge the Secretary of State to consider two vital roles that the new commission must have when it is set up. First, it must carefully monitor the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, especially in respect of transport. I have mentioned the upgrading of rail carriages, but there is a question whether audio-visual facilities are needed on buses so that people can hear and see when they reach the right bus stop more easily than they can at present. There is also a question whether the legislation should be extended to aviation and shipping. For example, there have been well-publicised cases of disabled people who have tried to get Ryanair flights, but have been treated in a way that most hon. Members would find utterly appalling. The sooner the Act can have teeth to stop such incidents from happening, the better for thousands of people with disabilities.
	Secondly, I hope that the new commission will look beyond the DDA to new areas in which it might have a role. I hope that it will examine whether disabled people should have a right to independent living and whether elements of the DDA should be extended to schools and communal areas, which are not covered at the moment. I hope that the commission will consider whether there should be a more generous interpretation of mental illness rather than the current fairly strict one. I hope that it will examine whether the Act should apply to volunteering, which is a vital way back into independent living and the world of work for a number of people with disabilities. I hope that it will consider whether something should be done for carers, who are vital to improving the life chances of many people with disabilities, but are not especially helped by legislation as it stands.
	I hope that the commission will examine the link between disability and poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that the percentage of people of working age with disabilities who live in income poverty is double that of people who do not have disabilities. It also found that that number is rising, while the percentage of children and pensioners living in income poverty is falling.
	Finally, I hope that the new commission will consider bold measures to eliminate discrimination in areas such as health care, housing, benefits and social services, in all of which there are substantial battles that must be won if we are to secure equality of opportunity and equality of esteem for people with disabilities.
	Disability is not something that affects only a small minority: one in seven people in this country have disabilities and one in 10 care for someone with disabilities. I will turn 40 this year; by the time I am 85, there will be four times as many 85-year-olds as there are now, and many of them will have disabilities. I therefore hope that as we move forward with the new commission we will continue to make progress for people with disabilities. We must be vigilant against losing the focus that to date has been so successful for people with disabilities and others. We need to recognise that we are at the start of a journey in relation to tackling discrimination and improving the life chances of people with disabilities and we must match the legislative progress that we have made in the House with practical progress on the ground. Only by doing that will we achieve equality of opportunity and equality of esteem for disabled people and ensure that they become not just aspirations for those who seek to eliminate prejudice, but realities for those who suffer it.

Barbara Keeley: We can see that there is genuine consensus on the Bill both inside and outside the House. My hon. Friend the Minister and the Government are to be congratulated on bringing the work on the legislation to this stage with that level of consensus. That is good.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that there is no real need for the Bill to create a separate committee for London. As the MP for a Greater Manchester constituency, I think it is important that we all support the basing of the commission in Greater Manchester and acknowledge that doing that in no way downgrades any of its functions. Manchester is a great area in which to live and work, and the Worsley constituency is a very convenient place from which to travel if one is based in Manchester.
	The public sector duty to promote gender equality is vital and I hope that we will see public authorities in their role as employers taking proactive steps to improve the position of women in employment. As I noted on Second Reading, there are a great many issues for them to concentrate on. The duty to promote equality will help to deal with the way in which caring affects people's ability to work. That has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt). As we know, carers are a key group in our society, accounting for 10 per cent. of our population, and in some age groups, carers' ability to work is affected by their caring responsibilities. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has a separate strand to promote equality between those with dependants and those without. Although there is to be no separate strand on caring responsibilities in the work of the new CEHR, I hope that it will become a priority for the new commission, as it is for the Government.
	The Bill is the biggest step forward in the law on equality in many years. There is vital work for the new commission to do and it is important that it can be done in an integrated way, encompassing equality, diversity, human rights and work to promote good relations. I hope that in doing that work in an integrated way, the commission will also be able to take a broad view of equality in ways that will help other groups who suffer discrimination in employment—for example, people who face the difficulties of balancing work and caring responsibilities. Among the many things that we can do for carers, it is key to ensure that they can look forward to some of the serenity to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred. Serenity is a quality that we could all use a bit more of in our lives.

John Bercow: The fifth of April 2005 witnessed the first of the two Second Reading debates on the Bill that this House has had. On that occasion I had the privilege of expressing my strong and vociferous support for the Bill, and in a thinly attended Chamber I took 25 minutes to do so. Tonight, I shall be much briefer because I am conscious that others wish to contribute to the debate.
	This is a first-class Bill. It was given an extremely pithy and eloquent recommendation to the House by the Secretary of State about half an hour ago. It will establish the commission for equality and human rights. It will legislate to prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities on grounds of religion, belief or sexual orientation, and it will impose a duty on public authorities to promote gender equality. These provisions are all extremely welcome, and in two specific senses. First, they are welcome in the sense that they are not merely aspirational or the expression of a theory. They will make a concrete difference in terms of improving people's lives, which has to be the ultimate test of the appropriateness of a particular piece of legislation. Secondly—this is not insignificant either—they send out a signal as to the type of society in which the House believes, and I believe that the legislation is good.
	In all courtesy to the Minister, whose stewardship of the Bill I greatly respect, I think that she would be unwise—and she is not—if she were not fully to heed and reflect on two of the most powerful, impassioned and convincing speeches that I have heard in the House in a long time, namely those from the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Their speeches gave a real meaning to the idea, old-fashioned though it might be, that one comes into the Chamber and listens open-mindedly to a contribution with no preconceptions and is influenced in one judgment by that speech. That is the best tribute that I can give to those two hon. Members. My thinking was influenced as they spoke.
	The Bill was good before and, as a result of amendments in the course of legislative scrutiny, it is better now. I think that it is unlikely that the House will be divided tonight, but if there are people who are genuinely opposed in principle to the Bill, they might wish to test their opinion in the Lobby. However, I strongly support the Bill and, if there is a Division, I shall express that support by going, with pride, through the Aye Lobby.

Keith Vaz: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) for his kind comments about both me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). We are not used to having such nice things said about us. I return the compliment because the hon. Gentleman always makes thoughtful and impassioned speeches from the Opposition Benches.
	I shall be brief. What is good about the Bill is that it has the support of both sides of the House. Many speeches today were based on the experience of so many Members. I shall concentrate on the issue of race, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, because it is obviously of constituency interest to me. Forty-nine per cent. of my constituents are of Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin, so it is an issue that I have followed during the 19 years that I have been in Parliament. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree when I say that I cannot remember a time when there has been such a consensus over an issue of this sort. It is so good to see such a consensus.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for going to such an extent to meet the objections that we expressed in the amendments that we tabled. It is good to hear from the Secretary of State, because he is the man who will be making the appointments to the new commission. His statements tonight about it being inconceivable that the commission could be formed without proper representation of the black and Asian communities is something that we warmly welcome. I look forward to seeing those appointments when they are made. I am sure that a number of the groups that have been involved in putting forward views on the Bill, such as the CRE, the 1990 Trust and the Greater London authority, will want to put forward their representations as well.
	I was pleased by the points made by the Minister when she said clearly that if the structures were not put in place the Government would have to think about what they needed to do to ensure that objections were met. As I have said, that is a clear statement. I know that she fell short of a commitment to me to bring forward legislation, but there are many Members in the Chamber—I see my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Khan) and for Brent, South (Ms Butler) and others—who would be prepared to bring forward a private Member's Bill to ensure that the commitments that have been made from the Government Dispatch Box are adhered to by the new commission. I hope, however, that we will not need to do so. I share the optimism of my hon. Friend the Minister, who performs her duties with enthusiasm. I remind her that it is high time that she joined the payroll vote after her sterling efforts on the Bill.
	I end by thanking two Ministers who are not in the Chamber, but who have had an important say in the progress of the Bill. I am grateful to my near neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and to Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who has always taken a strong interest in these issues. He was excellent when the Bill was in the Lords, and in his ministerial capacity he has gone out of his way to make sure that he uses the power of appointment—one of the most important powers available to Ministers—to ensure that a number of black and Asian people have been appointed to positions in his portfolio. Ministers should remember that when they exercise power, but I wish the Bill and the commission well.

Gerald Howarth: I strongly support the observations made by my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr.   Hunt). If the Bill achieves what he hopes it will achieve it will serve some useful purpose, but I have reservations about it. I do not wish to rain on anyone's parade, but it is important that such concerns, which extend beyond the House, are expressed.
	I have grave concerns about the Bill because of its likely impact on freedom of choice and expression. It is likely to reinforce the situation in which certain minorities no longer command equality but are, indeed, placed in a position of superiority. Anyone who expresses a contrary view will then be exposed to the threat of prosecution. There are genuine fears about the Bill. The Secretary of State has tried to assure us that the Bill removes fear, but in many quarters ordinary decent and reasonable people fear that it will serve not to remove fear, but to increase it. That is not an off-the-cuff assertion, but is backed up by facts.
	Mr. Ed Greening, for example, has been removed from Wiltshire's adoption panel because he believes that children thrive better in a normal home, with a man and a woman as adoptive parents, than in a homosexual household. The Labour Government have gone further and in "Supporting Families" they state that marriage is the
	"surest foundation for raising children".
	However, a man has been removed from a job that he has undertaken for five years not because he believes that homosexual adoption is wrong, but because his first preference would always be
	"for a child to be reared by a heterosexual couple."
	He says:
	"There is now a lot of pressure to give equal status to same-sex partners, who in some cases are not going to be as appropriate as heterosexual married couples."
	To most normal people in this country, that will be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but in the current climate, which has been reinforced by the Bill, it is likely to attract a police interview.
	Indeed, that is what happened to Lynette Burrowes, who said in a Radio 5 Live interview that she did not think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. PC Plod was dispatched because, according to a Scotland Yard spokesman,
	"it is policy for community safety units"—
	ominously reminiscent of Robespierre's committee of public safety—to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because they were "priority crimes". My son is a young solicitor, and I suggest we ask the parents of the young solicitor who was killed last week whether that should be a priority crime, rather than some of the things to which the police must now devote their time.
	New Labour's new thought police were soon pursuing the chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie. He, too, was investigated for expressing a view that is a central tenet of his faith. The same thing happened two years ago to the Bishop of Chester. When I complained to the chief constable of Cheshire, he told me:
	"I do feel that all community leaders need to be careful that their views however carefully crafted are not misinterpreted through headlines in the media or used by disturbed individuals as an excuse to target particular individuals."
	That is simply unbelievable. For the expression of a deeply held Christian view by a bishop of the established Church, of which Her Majesty the Queen is supreme governor, to be subject to a police caution is a measure of the depth to which we have sunk.
	As we read in yesterday's The Mail on Sunday, the Association of Chief Police Officers has issued a guidance note, which states:
	"if a complainant feels his allegation is not being taken seriously—even if it isn't true—he will have been 'victimised' by police . . . The onus falls entirely on the police to manage the interaction to ensure that the victim has no residual feelings of secondary victimisation."
	The police are in a no-win situation—it does not matter how careful they are because they will be judged on how the alleged victim views their attitude.
	I fear that the Bill will accelerate the process of intolerance against Christian views. I am pleased to say that no action was ever going to be taken against Sir Iqbal, but the lack of prosecution resulted from the public authorities' burning desire not to be seen to offend Muslim opinion. By contrast, Christian views can be offended with impunity: "Jerry Springer—The Opera" was deeply offensive to many Christians, but their concerns were loftily dismissed by Michael Grade and the BBC.
	The padre of my church, to whom I was speaking yesterday, has recently returned from operations in Iraq. Over Christmas, he protested to Channel 4 about the trailer for a programme called, "The Magic of Jesus", but the operator to whom he spoke simply put the phone down on him. Would either Channel 4 or the BBC have dared to stage a play making fun of the Prophet Mohammed? I suggest not. However, it is true that a play that offended a minority group in Birmingham, and which caused it to react violently, was abandoned.
	Tonight's Evening Standard carries a report entitled, "Gay police want ban on Christian association":
	"Leaders of the Gay Police Association (GPA) have made a formal complaint to Met chiefs demanding that they bar members of the Christian Police Association from the force as they do members of the BNP."
	It is deeply offensive to associate the Christian Church with the British National party.
	If the Bill is enacted, I fear that there will be pressure on some of our ancient towns to abandon public support for Christmas celebrations.

Sadiq Khan: Scaremongering.

Gerald Howarth: That has happened in plenty of cases where the decision was changed under public protest. There was a proposal to rename the Christmas festival "Winterval", for the express reason that Christmas might be offensive to Muslims. All the Muslims whom I know find it deeply offensive that Christians are not prepared to stand up and say, "This is an ancient festival and part of our national life." Departments are falling over themselves to be seen to celebrate minority religious festivals, often spending thousands of pounds of public money.
	Over Christmas, Mr. Paxman could not bring himself to use BC—before Christ—and had to resort to something called, "BCE". I wonder whether you know what that means, Mr. Speaker. I understand that it means—

Evan Harris: Before Cameron era.

Gerald Howarth: That encompasses the entire history of the world, and we face a new, exciting era.
	It is significant that this place, the other place and GCHQ are exempt from the Bill. Why are we exempt when the Bill is being forced on the rest of the British public? Such are the inroads being made by the politically correct in Britain today that this Chamber will be the only place where genuine freedom of expression will be permitted, thanks not to any modernising by this lot, but to an ancient Act of Parliament dating to 1689—the Bill of Rights. If I had made this speech outside this House, I dare say that PC Plod would have called me up and asked me to explain my views.
	All hon. Members enjoy special protection, which we are seeking to take away from many of our citizens by imposing draconian legislation. We need to ensure that we are protected as hon. Members and able to speak our minds. There now appears to be so little difference between the parties that often those who have a genuinely held conviction get more interest from the public because although they are saying something that they may not necessarily agree with, they want to hear Members of this House speaking their minds, which is what we were elected to do. I have constituents who are not in the powerful position that we are in and who are living in fear of their lives because they may have said something out of place or at which somebody has taken offence. [Interruption.] It is no good Labour Members tut-tutting. In my constituency somebody working in the NHS was dismissed from her job because she said something that was taken by somebody else to be offensive, although that was not her intention.
	I support what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey said about disability. I hope that the Bill will achieve some of those objectives, but we need to be careful in ensuring that it does not have unforeseen adverse effects on the people of this country.

Vera Baird: Oh dear—I am afraid that there are still little patches of the nasty party around.
	I was on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which recommended that there should be a human rights commissioner. I am proud that we worked to produce a good report and proud that it was heeded. The commission would otherwise have been an inevitable outcome of our obligation to meet various Europe-imposed duties of equality on age, sexual orientation, religion or belief. The presence of human rights has helped to pull the commission, with all its faults—I am aware of my hon. Friends' concerns—out of being a minimal pull-together and helped to make it look like a new venture with wider dimensions, involving complex problems with philosophical implications and an opportunity to drive equalities and human rights through a society that is still very unequal.
	When we talk about the respect agenda, we are talking about the need to regroup people around the common rights and responsibilities that we all share. The human rights in the European convention on human rights are a reasonable representation of those rights and responsibilities. Save those that we would all want to be absolute—life, freedom from torture, the prohibition on slavery and the right to a fair trial rights—the rights are conditional. They carry with them internally the rationale for the responsibilities that are required as a result of having them. For instance, in a democratic society the right to respect for the family can be interfered with if there is a necessity to do so in the interests of security, public safety, economic well-being, crime prevention, health, morals or the rights and freedoms of others. Set out in the convention is the concept that rights are available only in so far as they are compatible with corresponding duties or respect. No one can rely on their right to family life in their home if they are using it to blast music at others, perpetually playing it so loud that it is terrifying in itself because the defying of all decencies is so blatant. It will be necessary, in the interests of a democratic society, to protect the rights and freedoms of others by dealing with that.
	There is, of course, an overwhelming test of proportionality, but the values implicit in human rights are good, because otherwise, however we do it, we are imposing our own values on the disrespectful person. The validity of those values is contestable. Someone might say, "Who is the judge to decide that my music is too loud?", or "Who is the prosecutor who brings the case to impose his values on me?", or "What right has the neighbour to complain just because she does not like my music?" If we balance people's mutual rights to a private life, taking into account the broader interests of society, we find that we have, at the very least, a rationale for what we impose that is grounded in values that run well with democratic society. Those values are demonstrable and explicable and can become a currency by which we all interact with each other, but they cannot become so if they are not promoted. That cannot be achieved by court cases on narrow legal points. The commission has a duty to drive human rights with the bite of legal powers, but the job of promoting them is a key part of that.
	There is much left to do. Good personnel must be appointed. We must equalise the law on equalities, redefine public authorities and ensure that none of the strands is weakened by their unity. There will be another Bill, but I congratulate my Government on this step towards equality, harmony and more respect.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Climate change levy

That the draft Climate Change Agreement (Energy-intensive Installations) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Betting, Gaming and Lotteries) Order 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 3328), dated 5th December 2005, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
	That Ben Chapman and Mr Andrew Mackay be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr David Curry and Mr Chris Mullin be added.—[Mr. Heppell.]

MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Ordered,
	That Chris Grayling and Jessica Morden be discharged from Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mrs Theresa May and Graham Stringer be added.—[Mr. Heppell.]

DEFENCE

Ordered,
	That Derek Conway be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr Mark Lancaster be added—[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

COMMITTEES

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 7 to 11.
	Ordered,

Education and Skills

That Mr David Evennett be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr Douglas Carswell be added.

Environmental Audit

That Mrs Theresa Villiers be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr Edward Vaizey be added.

Home Affairs

That Nick Herbert be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr Richard Spring be added.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions

That Mr Mark Lancaster be discharged from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee and Mr Greg Hands be added.

Treasury

That Damian Green be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr Brooks Newmark be added.—[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Furs Estate

Harry Cohen: I wish to present the public petition of residents of Furs estate, South Woodford and others. The lead signature is that of Mr. Edward Blackwell of 13 Broadwalk E18, who is a campaigner on the matter. Twenty-two other residents of the estate have signed it.
	The petition
	Declares that the Furs estate has become a dangerous place for drivers and pedestrians as a result of excess use of the estate as a practice area and test route for learner drivers by driving schools.
	The Petitioners further declare that over the past four and a half years over 30 road traffic accidents on the estate have been caused by learner drivers.
	In addition the Petitioners declare that meetings between residents, the police the council and local driving schools have failed to solve the problem.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to pass legislation restricting the use of enclosed estates as practice areas and test routes for learner drivers by driving schools.
	And the Petitions remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

HOSPITALS (HERTFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Claire Ward.]

Grant Shapps: I originally wanted to call the debate, "Financial crisis in Hertfordshire hospitals" but a wise-looking man in the Table Office said that only the Government can declare a crisis in this country, so I had to resort to calling it merely, "Financial deficit in Hertfordshire hospitals". However, to my constituents, many of whom are watching the debate, it is a genuine crisis.
	In Welwyn Hatfield and Hertfordshire, circumstances developed that led to an acute hospital, which was responsible for all manner of health care, becoming little more than a community or cottage hospital. It all started approximately six years ago, when the original two trusts merged to form a single East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust. At that time, we were reassured beyond doubt that it was simply an administrative merger that would make the trust's running costs much lower.
	Time went on and we found that the Tewin children's ward was being closed down. To our surprise and without notification, the ward was initially closed at weekends, and then permanently, so that people who would otherwise use the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City were expected instead to take their children 14 miles up the motorway to the Lister hospital in Stevenage. That might have been okay if, as we were promised, the paediatric assessment unit had remained open for the first 24 hours of stay. However, constituents learned with some surprise last year that the paediatric assessment unit would also be closed at night, leaving a PAU in place only in the daytime.
	Far worse and much more specific, the deficit of some £49 million in Hertfordshire health care this year has compounded matters so that, in East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, a rescue plan has been put in place. It is always said that it is bad news when the experts are called in to talk about how to make further cuts, and so it was when PricewaterhouseCoopers came to the East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust to explain how more money could be saved to try to right the deficit that had got out of control. A deficit amounting to £49 million over the next three years has been projected. As a result, in addition to losing the children's ward and the night-time operation of the paediatric assessment unit, we are now to lose all children's services during the day, all our blue-light accident and emergency services, and all our maternity services. My twins, Tabytha and Noa, who were born there just 20 months ago, will be among the last children to be born at that hospital because the maternity services are to close. That is not all. All operational activity is to cease. There will be no further operations if the restructuring plan is put in place.
	The list goes on, and it is an extensive one. Similar situations are being experienced by my colleagues around the country. This is all in the name of recovering from a financial deficit that is simply going to put lives at risk in Welwyn Hatfield and other parts of Hertfordshire.

Michael Penning: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that these cuts are being implemented for reasons not of clinical need, but of financial mismanagement?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is right to pinpoint that issue. When the children's services were first being closed, the bosses of my NHS trust made it sound as though the cuts were all to do with clinical outcomes. Now, however, they do not even pretend that that is the case. They simply say, "We must cut this deficit." The carrot that they hold out in regard to these significant cuts to hospital services is that one day, somewhere along the line—perhaps in about 2013—we might get a hospital in Hatfield. A £550 million private finance initiative project has been on the cards for some years, yet as it supposedly gets nearer, the completion date gets further away. It is three years since the project was announced, yet its completion date is now three years further away.
	We learned this morning from the front page of The Times that certain multi-billion pound PFI schemes are likely to be scrapped. When we put the Hatfield scheme into that context, we realise that it is worth more than £500 million and that, so far, PFI has paid for only £2 billion of investment in total, so this project represents a quarter of the entire PFI budget to date. This morning, we found out that projects worth a further £12 billion are among those that Ministers are reviewing. I ask the Minister this evening whether she can confirm that the Hatfield PFI project was included in those projects that might not now happen.
	I understand, because I am in close contact with the health bosses in my local trust, that the problems there are systemic and that they go back many years. Every year for the past six years, there has been a need for interim funding to the tune of £15 million to £16 million, year on year. I put it to the Minister that that is not simply a question of a local health trust spending money badly, although there might well be some of that involved. This is the story of the county of Hertfordshire, which simply does not get the per capita spending that it requires.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend has mentioned a systemic difficulty in his part of Hertfordshire, and I can confirm that we have similar problems in west Hertfordshire. I should like to elaborate on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) about the fact that the proposed cuts are driven purely by financial rather than clinical need. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead and I met the chief executive of the West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust shortly after the general election and made it absolutely clear that we believed that the cuts were being driven by financial need. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) faces the same problems.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is exactly right. West Hertfordshire has similar problems driving similar, rather draconian solutions, which mean cuts in services to local people.
	Let me ask the Minister a simple question. How will a trust that has run up such deficits over the past few years, that thinks that its problems are probably systemic—that additional funding is simply needed on a per capita basis—and that is in so much financial difficulty today, ever be able to afford a repayment on half a billion pounds of extra debt? I am sure that she will explain to me a list of facts of figures, and I understand and welcome the fact that more money has gone into health care. I do not welcome the fact that that money is not getting through to the front line, however. In our local health care economies, our hospitals are suffering cuts. My hospital is suffering really sharp, deep cuts that are making a horrendous difference to people's lives. It is no good listing how many extra doctors, nurses and consultants there are in Welwyn Hatfield and our part of Hertfordshire if there is no hospital for them to work in. That is the simple problem that we face.
	I would wager that the money has gone into all manner of different areas. We know, for example, that the consultant and GP contracts have been expensive to fulfil. We know that the 1 per cent. on national insurance hit no organisation in this country harder, in an attempt to help the health service, than the health service itself, which paid that 1 per cent. We know that money has gone into various layers of bureaucracy. When constituents write to me to ask why they have not had an operation, I often have to refer to a ladder including the Secretary of State for Health herself, the regional health offices, the strategic health authorities, the primary care trusts, the NHS acute trusts—the list goes on. There are simply too many layers involved in the process.
	If somebody has a heart attack in Hatfield, for example, and they are expected to be driven in, for whatever reason, a private car 17 miles up the motorway to Stevenage, they will find that the motorway is clogged at rush hours, as it is every single day. It is impossible to see how we will get emergency care to that constituent on time. We are reaching a life and death situation.

Graham Stuart: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not just constituencies such as his that are affected? In extremely rural constituencies such as mine, the financial deficits in the NHS and the failure of money to reach the front line is leading to cuts and threats of closure to community hospitals on which the old, vulnerable and poor most depend. That crisis affects the whole NHS, across the whole country, not just Hertfordshire. Will he congratulate the more than 60 campaigners from across the country who attended the Community Hospitals Acting Nationally Together conference today, held jointly with the Community Hospitals Association, to work to change the Government's mind?

Grant Shapps: I concur completely with my hon. Friend's comments and I congratulate him on his work with the CHANT programme, which has been impressive. I have a word of reassurance for him—the Government are in the process, certainly in Hertfordshire, of turning acute, major, general hospitals into nothing more than community hospitals. I know that community hospitals do a wonderful job, but I am afraid that an extra hospital will be joining his CHANT group because of those closures. That is a huge worry— I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend and his organisation. We need an acute hospital in our area, and we have the pledge of a new hospital.
	Given the way in which the situation is developing in our part of Hertfordshire, does the Minister think that the problem lies with the local health chiefs who are somehow spending the money inappropriately, or is it the fault of the Government? Who is to blame for what is going on? Will she give us a categorical assurance that the funding of the Hatfield hospital project will go ahead? Can she reassure us that it is not part of the cuts mentioned in today's newspaper—the go-slow on £12 billion of PFI projects? Is Hatfield caught up in that number? How many people will have to die on the way to hospital before the Government realise that we on this side of the House are not simply scaremongering about the dangers and risks faced by our constituents? This is for real, so will she tell us when the Government plan to get a grip on the situation?

Caroline Flint: I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) on securing the debate and I will try to address the points that he has raised, which are clearly of concern to him and to other hon. Members. I would also like to pay tribute to all the NHS staff in his constituency and elsewhere in Hertfordshire who are committed to the improvement of the local NHS.
	From what I understand, there has been a debate in recent years in the area about how services might be improved for the future, part of which has been about the hospitals and what they have provided and can provide in the future. I will go through some of the new provision that is available in a number of the different hospitals in Watford and elsewhere.
	There has also been a debate about what services are needed outside of hospitals and closer to where people live, as part of a more community-based approach to providing health services. That debate is taking place in Hertfordshire and up and down the country in recognition of the quality that can follow those community-based services and of the fact that they can sometimes represent better value for money, efficiency and quality in terms of health care. As the Minister with responsibility for public health, I am keen on preventing people from going into hospital.
	The NHS as a whole, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is in receipt of record resources because of the Government's policy of funding the NHS. The 2003–04 to 2005–06 revenue allocations to primary care trusts represent £148 billion of investment in the NHS. Over the three years covered by the allocations, PCTs will receive an average increase of 30.8 per cent. The most recent round of revenue allocations, covering 2006–07 and 2007–08, represents £135 billion investment in the NHS, a huge amount. Over the two years covered by this allocation, PCTs will receive an average increase of 19.5 per cent.

Graham Stuart: The Minister, in the style of all Ministers of this Government, runs out the figures, but why are so many primary care trusts in deficit? Why are they expecting to go further into deficit this year while getting that increase?

Caroline Flint: The trusts in deficit are in a minority in the NHS. Most are balancing their books and achieving good quality outcomes from less money than is sometimes provided in areas that are in deficit. It is important to ask that question. We are addressing the issues in different ways—by payment by results and so forth—but there is a question about why, in some of our poorer neighbourhoods where the health inequalities are very clear, we are getting better value for money in delivery of health care than in other areas. As a direct result of the allocation, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield's local PCT received £98.5 million in 2005–06 and will receive £119 million in 2006–07 and £129 million in 2007–08.

Grant Shapps: I am pleased to hear about those increases for the PCT, but does she accept that the problem in Hertfordshire is with the NHS acute trusts and not the PCTs, which are running in balance? The trusts are massively in deficit, by £43 million.

Caroline Flint: I appreciate that, but that is another reason why these trusts have to be brought into balance, as there can be knock-on effects in terms of primary care delivery. Therefore, primary care trusts who oversee this area in terms of spending obviously are mindful of what is provided in the hospitals, but are mindful also of what they want to fund in the community.
	The hon. Gentleman will agree that, as I said earlier, a number of services could be provided outside of hospitals. Indeed, a number of services could help in the long, medium and short term to prevent people from turning up in hospital. There is accident and emergency provision in the hon. Gentleman's area, but decisions have been taken as to who should provide a blue-light service and who should not. But as I understand it, that does not mean that that there is no 24/7 accident and emergency coverage in his area.
	Collectively, the eight Hertfordshire primary care trusts receive huge allocations. They received in excess of £858.5 million in 2005–06—a figure that will increase to £1.1 billion in 2007–08. Given such investment, all NHS bodies should be able to plan for, and achieve, financial balance each and every year. I should point out that the majority of NHS organisations are both delivering service improvements and living within their set budgets, but we recognise that a minority of organisations face challenging financial agendas. The Department and the strategic health authorities are trying to work with them to help restore financial balance.
	Turnaround teams have been set up to support the NHS in identifying opportunities to deliver services with greater cost-effectiveness and to make financial savings. The teams consist of financial and management experts who are experienced in resolving financial problems and helping organisations to manage their resources better. West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, and East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, have built on the work already commissioned by the SHA by undertaking baseline assessments and by bringing in PricewaterhouseCoopers to help address some of the financial difficulties that they face. A meeting took place on 10 January. The SHA received feedback from the turnaround teams' work and it is reviewing the results.
	Before I discuss efficiency savings and the recovery plans, I want to point out that, despite the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, there have been some significant developments in the county in terms of supporting new ways of addressing the provision of health care. For example, the Watford health village project, which will lead to the redevelopment by early 2013 of Watford general hospital and the immediate surrounding area, is proceeding well. One partner, the East of England Development Agency, recently agreed to contribute £750,000 over the next two years to pre-planning work for this scheme. The Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire postgraduate medical school, based in Hatfield, opened in September and will enable local NHS organisations to attract support and to retain the best talent in the region.
	Through the surgery centres project, most elective surgery in Hertfordshire will take place in new, dedicated centres on the Hemel Hempstead and Lister hospital sites. The project is progressing well. Lister's £2.3 million cardiac suite was funded through the national lottery New Opportunities Fund and through the local NHS funding that we provided. It opened to patients in September 2004, and in its first year alone it cared for some 1,500 people from throughout east and north Hertfordshire. There is a new combined breast cancer and magnetic resonance imaging unit at the QE2 hospital, and the revamped Hertford county hospital was officially opened on 9 September. It will provide a range of services and open its doors to local people to provide a range of treatments. The capacity being built through those developments is doubtless welcomed by MPs throughout the county.

Michael Penning: It is all well and good saying that new units are opening here and there, but the Government are closing units to fund them. They talk about opening a cardiac unit, but they are closing the cardiac unit in Hemel Hempstead. The brand new stroke unit will close to fund the developments to which the Minister refers. So you are not giving anything new to the people of Hertfordshire; you are taking it away and handing it out somewhere else.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Speaker never takes funds away from anyone.

Caroline Flint: We have given many new opportunities to the people of Hertfordshire, which is why waiting lists are down. People used to wait years for operations; now, waiting lists are at record low levels, and there are more doctors and nurses in the county. Discussions have taken place as part of examining future health; indeed, there was a huge consultation on how hospitals could be redeveloped. I understand that there was widespread support for the proposals. They were supported by cross-party representatives, local people and local groups. Even the local media recognised how important is the opportunity of having a new hospital.
	On the question about the private finance initiative, of course it is right that the Department should keep the hospital PFI programme under constant review to ensure that it delivers value for money. A number of PFI schemes are reaching a critical moment in the contracting process and are being subjected to the sort of detailed scrutiny that the public would expect of a major procurement project. That does not mean that there is a freeze on hospital PFI projects. We have just given two NHS trusts—Oxford Radcliffe and Portsmouth Hospitals—the go-ahead for construction. Obviously, the issue is kept under review, but we continue through the initiative to deliver the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS.

Stewart Jackson: In my constituency, the difference between the outline business case and the current costs estimate for the PFI project is 82 per cent. Can the Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that where an outline business case has been received for a new project, it will be honoured by the Government and the project will come to fruition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) also said?

Caroline Flint: As I said, we keep these areas under review to make sure that they are providing good value for money. The issues are also discussed in the local trusts and there is obviously huge discussion and liaison with the Department.

Oliver Heald: In North-East Hertfordshire, we are putting up with a great deal on the basis that there is the prospect of the new hospital project coming on stream. Is the Minister saying that there is a question over that?

Caroline Flint: Not at all. I was asked directly whether a decision had been made about whether the PFI programme would go ahead. I think that I was quite clear. We keep the whole PFI programme under review. There is not a freeze on PFI hospital projects. We have just given two projects the go-ahead in different parts of England. Obviously, we are still keen to keep on track with the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. I have to say that, partly, the need to address the problems that we face, and to provide more doctors and nurses and better environments for health professionals to work in, is a legacy of previous Governments who failed to provide the sort of hospitals and health care that both treat illness and prevent people from getting sick in the first place.

Grant Shapps: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: I have three minutes left and would like to say something about efficiency savings and recovery plans as that was the main focus of the hon. Gentleman's debate.
	Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority is working closely with the East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust and the West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust to see how to deliver the efficiency savings needed to address the deficits incurred. They have to be addressed. It would be unfair to the those in the rest of the NHS who are achieving balance if we did not ensure that that happens. West Hertfordshire plans efficiency savings of £12 million a year between now and 2008–09. I understand that it will consider issues around improving clinical efficiency, which is expected to deliver savings in the region of £4.3 million. There are examples of better ways of providing clinical services. In an Adjournment debate recently, for example, one of my colleagues described how one consultant was doing as many operations as two had done by addressing the turn-around in orthopaedic surgery.

Grant Shapps: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene because it is his debate, but will he bear with me for a moment?
	Non-clinical efficiency is expected to deliver savings in the region of £3.5 million. Organisational changes to make sure that people are fit for the jobs they do will deliver around £3.6 million. In addition, maximising income on work undertaken on both NHS and private patients is expected to generate income in the region of £600,000, which will help to offset the deficit.

Grant Shapps: In the short time that we have left, can the Minister tell me and my constituents, many of whom are here tonight, whether the so-called reconfigurations—cuts to us—will cost lives in Welwyn Hatfield?

Caroline Flint: It is important that health trusts manage a proper service that takes account of the finances, use the record investment that we have provided to invest in services and, importantly, look at how they can deliver a better health service, including preventing people from ending up in hospitals with sicknesses that could be dealt with outside and doing more to prevent them from becoming sick in the first place. In that sense, the debate that is happening in the hon. Gentleman's county is a way in which we can look to not only save lives in the future, but ensure that those who become ill receive the services that they need, sometimes in hospital, sometimes closer to home and sometimes through different service provision. That is an important part of how we create an NHS fit for the 21st century.
	In terms of future investment and development in the area, the proposed changes and efficiency savings are linked to the reconfiguration of services. It is about looking at where we can save money to invest in the future, as well as dealing with the deficit. There are questions to be asked about how a minority of trusts have got into deficit and how they can contribute to getting themselves out of that situation. The Department and the strategic health authorities are working strongly with those organisations to help them to make changes and turn the situation around.
	It is important to recognise that services are not only about hospitals, but about primary care and intermediate care. A range of services needs to be provided, both inside and outside hospitals, to meet the needs of local populations. I know that the SHA is committed to achieving financial balance across the whole of its health economy. It is preparing the outline business cases for its 10-year plan "Investing in Your Health" for health services in both counties. It is my understanding that the whole ethos of that project is to ensure that health services are made available to people in both counties. It is not about winners and losers. It is about ensuring that the NHS—
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.